%HWI8 


<5tfEUNlVER%. 


.^ios 


TOK       ^-UBRAIMK 


^UNIVB% 


% 


f=T 


Hfife 


DS-ANGcufo, 


AOM 


fflfl^ 


i  OT-fAl 


*.  MvlVfl   «Ut 


•wijj;  |U*II  4  i 


<*HIBRARY0*.       **H]BRARY/v 


-  \WEUN1VEBS/a       ^lOSANCflf  ro 


0 


<$H!B 


^A!EUE 


$ 


*  ftftllt  ffltAi 


.tr.tifioji 


The  Legends  of  Genesis. 


HISTORY  OF  RELIGION. 


Book  of  the  Dead.  An  English  Translation.  By  E.A.  Wallts 
Budge,  Keeper  of  the  Egyptian  and  Assyrian  Antiquities  in 
the  British  Museum.  With  four  hundred  and  twenty  new 
vignettes.     Three  vols.     Crown  8vo.     Price,  $3.75  net. 

History  of  the  People  of  Israel.  By  Pro/.  C.  H.  Cornill. 
2nd  ed.    Pp.,  325.    Cloth,  $1.50  (7s.  6d.). 

The  Prophets  of  Israel.  By  Prof.  C.  H.  Cornill.  4th  edition. 
Pages,  210.    Cloth,  $1.00  net  (5s.). 

The  Rise  of  the  People  of  Israel.  By  Prof.  C.  H.  Cornill. 
Cloth,  50  cents  net  (2s.  6d.). 

The  Legends  of  Genesis.  By  Dr.  Hermann  Gunkel.  Pages, 
165.     Cloth,  $1.00  net  (4s.  6d.  net). 

Ancient  India  :  Its  Language  and  Religion.  By  Prof  H. 
Oldenberg.    Pages,  is,  no.     Cloth,  50c  (2s.  6d.). 

Lao-Tze's  Tao-Teh-King.  Chinese-English.  By  Dr.  Paul 
Carus.     Pages,  360.     Blue  and  gold  binding,  $3.00  (15s.). 

Buddhism  and  Its  Christian  Critics.     By  Dr.  Paul  Carus. 

Pages,  311.     Cloth,  $1.25  (6s.  6d.). 
The  Philosophy  of  Ancient  India.     By  Prof.  Richard  Garbe. 

Second  edition.    Pages,  89.    Cloth,  50c  (2s.  7d.). 

Travels  in  Tartary,  Thibet,  and  China,  of  the  Missionaries 
M.lf.  Hue  and  Gabet  (1844-1846).  Two  vols.  Illustrated.  Pp., 
688.     Cloth,  $2.00  (ios.).     One  volume,  cloth,  $1.25  net  (5s.). 

History  of  the  Devil.    By  Dr.  Paul  Carus.    Pages,  500.    311 

Illustrations.    Cloth,  $6.00  (30s.). 
Solomon  and  Solomonic  Literature.     By  M.  D.   Conway. 

Pages,  44.    Cloth,  $1.50  (6s.). 


THE  OPEN  COURT  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 


Kegan  Paul,  Trench,  Triibner  &  Co.,  Ltd. 


The  Legends  of  Genesis 


d^^,", 


By 

HERMANN  GUNKEL 

Professor  of  Old  Testament  Theology  in  the  University  of  Berlin 


Translated  by 

W.  H.  CARRUTH 

Professor  of  German  in  the  University  of  Kansas 


CHICAGO 

THE  OPEN  COURT  PUBLISHING  CO. 

LONDON  AGENTS 
Kegan  Paul,  Trench,  Triibner  <5^  Co.,  Ltd. 

IQOI 


TRANSLATION  COPYRIGHTED 
BV 

The  Open  Court  Publishing  Co. 
1901. 


PUBLISHER'S  NOTE 

The  present  volume  is  an  authorized  translation 
of  the  Introduction  to  Prof.  Gunkel's  large  Com- 
mentary on  Genesis,  published  during  the  present 
year  by  Vandenhoeck  and  Ruprecht,  of  Gottingen, 
under  the  title  of  Handcommcntar  znm  Alten  Testa- 
ment. Erste  Abtheilung,  erster  Band;  die  Genesis 
ilbersetzt  und  erkldrt  von  H.  Gnnkel.  The  general 
critical  and  historical  considerations  offered  to  the 
public  in  a  continuous  and  compendious  form  in 
this  Introduction  are  elaborated  and  substantiated 
in  the  larger  work  with  all  the  detail  that  belongs 
to  exhaustive  technical  exposition;  and  the  reader 
desirous  of  further  confirmation  of  the  views  here 
presented   is  referred  to  the  German  original. 

The  publishers  are  confident  that  the  concise 
formulation  of  the  very  latest  researches  on  Old 
Testament  history  here  offered  to  the  English- 
reading  public  will  find  a  cordial  and  extensive 
welcome. 

The  Open  Court  Publishing  Co. 
Chicago,  November,  1901. 


771002 


CHAP. 


CONTENTS 


PAGES 


I.     The  Significance  and  Scope  of  the  Legends      .  1-12 

II.     The  Varieties  of  the  Legends      ....  13-36 

III.  The  Literary  Form  of  the  Legends    .         .         .  37-87 

IV.  History  of  the  Development  of  the  Legends  in 

Oral  Tradition 88-122 

V.     Jahvist,  Elohist,  Jehovist,  Later  Collections      .  123-144 

VI.     Priestly  Codex  and  Final  Redaction   .         .         .  145-160 

Index 161-164 


The  Legends  of  Genesis 


i. 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE  AND  SCOPE  OF 
THE   LEGENDS. 

ARE  the  narratives  of  Genesis  history  or  legend? 
For  the  modern  historian  this  is  no  longer 
an  open  question;  nevertheless  it  is  important  to 
get  a  clear  notion  of  the  bases  of  this  modern  posi- 
tion. 

The  writing  of  history  is  not  an  innate  endowment 
of  the  human  mind;  it  arose  in  the  course  of  human 
history  and  at  a  definite  stage  of  development. 
Uncivilised  races  do  not  write  history;  they  are 
incapable  of  reproducing  their  experiences  objec- 
tively, and  have  no  interest  in  leaving  to  posterity 
an  authentic  account  of  the  events  of  their  times. 
Experiences  fade  before  they  are  fairly  cold,  and 
fact  and  fancy  mingle;  only  in  poetical  form,  in 
song  and  saga,  are  unlettered  tribes  able  to  report 
historical  occurrences.  Only  at  a  certain  stage  of 
civilisation  has  objectivity  so  grown  and  the  inter- 
est in  transmitting  national  experiences  to  posterity 
so  increased  that  the  writing  of  history  becomes 
possible.      Such   history  has  for   its   subjects  great 

i 


2  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

public  events,  the  deeds  of  popular  leaders  and 
kings,  and  especially  wars.  Accordingly  some  sort 
of  political  organisation  is  an  antecedent  presump- 
tion to  the  writing  of  history. 

Only  in  a  later,  in  the  main  a  much  later,  time  is 
the  art  of  writing  history,  learned  through  the  prac- 
tice of  writing  national  histories,  applied  to  other 
spheres  of  human  life,  whence  we  have  memoirs 
and  the  histories  of  families.  But  considerable  sec- 
tions of  the  people  have  never  risen  to  the  apprecia- 
tion of  history  proper,  and  have  remained  in  the 
stage  of  the  saga,  or  in  what  in  modern  times  is 
analogous  to  saga.  — I 

Thus  we  find  among  the  civilised  peoples  of 
antiquity  two  distinct  kinds  of  historical  records 
side  by  side:  history  proper  and  popular  tradition, 
the  latter  treating  in  naive  poetical  fashion  partly 
the  same  subjects  as  the  former,  and  partly  the 
events  of  older,  prehistoric  times.  And  it  is  not  to 
be  forgotten  that  historical  memories  may  be  pre- 
served even  in  such  traditions,  although  clothed  in 
poetic  garb. 

Even  so  did  history  originate  in  Israel.  In  the 
period  from  which  the  Book  of  Genesis  is  trans- 
mitted to  us  the  art  of  history  had  been  long  estab- 
lished and  highly  developed  according  to  ancient 
standards,  having  for  themes,  here  as  everywhere,  the 
deeds  of  kings  and  especially  wars.  A  monument 
of  this  history  is  found  in  the  narratives  of  the 
Second  Book  of  Samuel. 

But  in  a  people  with  such  a  highly  developed 
poetical  faculty  as  Israel  there  must  have  been  a 
place  for  saga  too.  The  senseless  confusion  of 
"legend"  with  "lying"  has  caused  good  people  to 


SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  LEGENDS.  3 

hesitate  to  concede  that  there  are  legends  in  the 
Old  Testament.  But  legends  are  not  lies;  on  the 
contrary,  they  are  a  particular  form  of  poetry.  Why 
should  not  the  lofty  spirit  of  Old  Testament  reli- 
gion, which  employed  so  many  varieties  of  poetry, 
indulge  in  this  form  also?  For  religion  everywhere, 
the  Israelite  religion  included,  has  especially  cher- 
ished poetry  and  poetic  narrative,  since  poetic  nar- 
rative is  much  better  qualified  than  prose  to  be  the 
medium  of  religious  thought.  Genesis  is  a  more 
intensely  religious  book  than  the  Book  of  Kings. 

There  is  no  denying  that  there  are  legends  in  the 
Old  Testament;  consider  for  instance  the  stories  of 
Samson  and  of  Jonah.  Accordingly  it  is  not  a 
matter  of  belief  or  skepticism,  but  merely  a  matter 
of  obtaining  better  knowledge,  to  examine  whether 
the  narratives  of  Genesis  are  history  or  legend. 

The  objection  is  raised  that  Jesus  and  the  Apostles 
clearly  considered  these  accounts  to  be  fact  and  not 
poetry.  Suppose  they  did;  the  men  of  the  New 
Testament  are  not  presumed  to  have  been  excep- 
tional men  in  such  matters,  but  shared  the  point  of 
view  of  their  time.  Hence  we  are  not  warranted  in 
looking  to  the  New  Testament  for  a  solution  of 
questions  in  the  literary  history  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. 

CRITERIA    FOR    LEGEND    AND    HISTORY. 

Now,  since  legend  and  history  are  very  different  in 
both  origin  and  nature,  there  are  many  criteria  by 
which  they  may  be  distinguished.  One  of  the  chief 
points  of  difference  is  that  legend  is  originally  oral 
tradition,  while  history  is  usually  found  in  written 
form;    this   is   inherent    in    the    nature  of   the    two 


4  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

species,  legend  being  the  tradition  of  those  who  are 
not  in  the  habit  of  writing,  while  history,  which  is  a 
sort  of  scientific  activity,  presupposes  practice  in 
writing.  At  the  same  time  the  writing  down  of  an 
historical  tradition  serves  to  fix  it,  whereas  oral 
tradition  cannot  remain  uncorrupted  for  any  length 
of  time  and  is  therefore  inadequate  to  be  the  vehicle 
of  history. 

Now  it  is  evident  that  Genesis  contains  the  final 
sublimation  into  writing  of  a  body  of  oral  traditions. 
The  tales  of  the  patriarchs  do  not  have  the  air  of 
having  been  written  down  by  the  patriarchs  them- 
selves; on  the  contrary  many  passages  reveal  clearly 
the  great  interval  of  time  that  lies  between  the 
period  of  the  patriarchs  and  that  of  the  narrators. 
We  read  frequently  the  expression  "even  to  this 
day,"  as  in  Genesis  xix.  38;  the  kings  of  Edom  are 
enumerated  down  to  the  time  of  David,  xxxvi.  31 
ff . ;  the  sentence  "in  those  days  the  Canaanites 
dwelt  in  the  land"  must  have  been  written  at  a  time 
when  this  race  had  long  since  passed  away. 

But  the  whole  style  of  the  narrative,  as  is  to  be 
shown  hereafter,  can  be  understood  only  on  the  sup- 
position of  its  having  been  oral  tradition;  this  state 
of  the  case  can  be  realised  especially  through  the 
many  variants,  to  be  treated  in  the  following  pages. 
But  if  the.  contents  of  Genesis  is  oral  tradition,  it 
is,  as  the  preceding  considerations  show,  legend 
also. 

DIFFERENT    SPHERES    OF    INTEREST. 

Another  distinguishing  feature  of  legend  and  his- 
tory is  their  different  spheres  of  interest.  History 
treats  great  public  occurrences,  while  legend  deals 


SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  LEGENDS.  5 

with  things  that  interest  the  common  people,  with 
personal  and  private  matters,  and  is  fond  of  present- 
ing even  political  affairs  and  personages  so  that  they 
will  attract  popular  attention.  History  would  be 
expected  to  tell  how  and  for  what  reasons  David 
succeeded  in  delivering  Israel  from  the  Philistines; 
legend  prefers  to  tell  how  the  boy  David  once  slew 
a  Philistine  giant. 

How  does  the  material  of  Genesis  stand  in  the  light 
of  this  distinction?     With  the  exception  of  a  single 
chapter   (Chapter  xiv),  it   contains   no   accounts   of 
great  political   events,  but  treats   rather  the  history 
of  a  family.     We  hear  a  quantity  of  details,  which 
certainly  have   for    the    greater  part    no    value   for 
political  history,  whether  they  are  attested  or  not: 
that  Abraham  was  pious  and  magnanimous,  and  that 
he  once  put  away  his  concubine  to  please  his  wife; 
that  Jacob  deceived  his  brother;    that  Rachel  and 
Leah    were    jealous, — "unimportant    anecdotes    of 
country  life,  stories  of  springs,  of  watering-troughs, 
and  such  as  are  told  in  the  bed-chamber,"  attractive 
enough  to  read,  yet  everything  but  historical  occur- 
rences.     Such   minor   incidents   aroused   no   public 
interest  when  they  took  place;    the  historian  does 
not  report  them,  but  popular  tradition  and  legend 
delight  in  such  details. 

EYE-WITNESS    AND    REPORTER. 

In  the  case  of  every  event  that  purports  to  be  a 
credible  historical  memorandum,  it  must  be  possible 
to  explain  the  connexion  between  the  eye-witness 
of  the  event  reported  and  the  one  who  reports  it. 
This  is  quite  different  in  the  case  of  legend,  which 
depends   for  its   material   partly  upon   tradition  and 


6  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

partly  upon  imagination.  We  need  only  apply  this 
test  to  the  first  narratives  of  Genesis  in  order  to 
recognise  their  character  straightway.  No  man  was 
present  at  the  creation  of  the  universe;  no  human 
tradition  extends  back  to  the  period  of  the  origin  of 
our  race,  of  the  first  peoples  and  the  primitive  lan- 
guages. 

In  former  times,  before  the  deciphering  of 
hieroglyphs  and  cuneiform  writing,  it  was  possible 
for  Israelitic  tradition  to  be  regarded  as  so  old  that 
it  did  not  seem  absurd  to  look  to  it  for  such  remi- 
niscences of  prehistoric  ages;  but  now  when  creation 
has  widened  so  mightily  in  our  view,  when  we  see 
that  the  People  of  Israel  is  one  of  the  youngest  in 
the  group  to  which  it  belongs,  there  is  an  end  of  all 
such  conjectures.  Between  the  origin  of  the  primi- 
tive races  of  southwestern  Asia  and  the  appearance 
of  the  People  of  Israel  upon  the  stage  of  life  had 
rolled  unnumbered  millenniums;  hence  there  is  no 
room  for  serious  discussion  over  historical  traditions 
said  to  be  possessed  by  Israel  regarding  those 
primitive  times. 

The  accounts  of  the  patriarchs  also  give  rise  to 
the  most  serious  doubts.  According  to  the  tradi- 
tion the  period  of  the  patriarchs  is  followed  by  the 
four  hundred  years  during  which  Israel  lived  in 
Egypt.  Nothing  is  reported  from  this  latter  period; 
historical  recollection  seems  to  have  been  utterly 
blotted  out.  And  yet  we  have  an  abundance  of 
unimportant  details  regarding  the  period  of  the 
patriarchs.  How  is  it  conceivable  that  a  people 
should  preserve  a  great  quantity  of  the  very  minut- 
est details  from  the  history  of  its  primitive  ancestors 
and  at  the  same  time  forget  its  own  national  history 


SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  LEGENDS.  1 

for  a  long  period  following?  It  is  not  possible  for 
oral  tradition  to  preserve  an  authentic  record  of 
such  details  so  vividly  and  for  so  long  a  time.  And 
then,  consider  these  narratives  in  detail.  The  ques- 
tion how  the  reporter  could  know  of  the  things  which 
he  relates  cannot  be  raised  in  most  cases  without 
exciting  laughter.  How  does  the  reporter  of  the 
Deluge  pretend  to  know  the  depth  of  the  water? 
Are  we  to  suppose  that  Noah  took  soundings?  How 
is  anyone  supposed  to  know  what  God  said  or 
thought  alone  or  in  the  councils  of  Heaven?  (Cp. 
Genesis  i.  2,  18,  vi.  3-6  ff.,  xi.  6  ff.) 

THE    CRITERION    OF    INCREDIBILITY. 

The  clearest  criterion  of  legend  is  that  it  fre- 
quently reports  things  which  are  quite  incredible. 
This  poetry  has  another  sort  of  probability  from  that 
which  obtains  in  prosaic  life,  and  ancient  Israel  con- 
sidered many  things  to  be  possible  which  to  us  seem 
impossible.  Thus  many  things  are  reported  in 
Genesis  which  go  directly  against  our  better  knowl- 
edge: we  know  that  there  are  too  many  species  of 
animals  for  all  to  have  been  assembled  in  any  ark; 
that  Ararat  is  not  the  highest  mountain  on  earth; 
that  the  "firmament  of  heaven,"  of  which  Genesis 
i.  6  ff.  speaks,  is  not  a  reality,  but  an  optical  illu- 
sion; that  the  stars  cannot  have  come  into  existence 
after  plants,  as  Genesis  ii.  10-14  reports;  that  the 
rivers  of  the  earth  do  not  come  chiefly  from  four 
principal  streams,  as  Genesis  ii.  thinks,  that  the 
Tigris  and  the  Euphrates  have  not  a  common 
source,  that  the  Dead  Sea  had  been  in  existence 
long  before  human  beings  came  to  live  in  Palestine, 
instead  of  originating  in  historical  times,  and  so  on. 


8  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

Of  the  many  etymologies  in  Genesis  the  majority 
are  to  be  rejected  according  to  the  investigations  of 
modern  philology.  The  theory  on  which  the 
legends  of  the  patriarchs  are  based,  that  the  nations 
of  the  earth  originated  from  the  expansion  of  a 
single  family,  in  each  case  from  a  single  ancestor, 
is  quite  infantile.1  Any  other  conclusion  is  impos- 
sible from  the  point  of  view  of  our  modern  historical 
science,  which  is  not  a  figment  of  imagination  but 
is  based  upon  the  observation  of  facts.  And  how- 
ever cautious  the  modern  historian  may  be  in  declar- 
ing anything  impossible,  he  may  declare  with  all 
confidence  that  animals — serpents  and  she-asses,  for 
instance — do  not  speak  and  never  have  spoken,  that 
there  is  no  tree  whose  fruit  confers  immortality  or 
knowledge,  that  angels  and  men  do  not  have  carnal 
connexion,  and  that  a  world-conquering  army  can- 
not be  defeated — as  Genesis  xiv.  declares — with 
three  hundred  and  eighteen  men. 

WANING    ANTHROPOMORPHISM. 

The  narratives  of  Genesis  being  mostly  of  a  reli- 
gious nature  are  constantly  speaking  of  God.  Now 
the  manner  in  which  narratives  speak  of  God  is  one 
of  the  surest  means  of  determining  whether  they  are 
historical  or  poetic.  Here  too  the  historian  cannot 
avoid  having  a  universal  point  of  view.  We  believe 
that  God  works  in  the  universe  in  the  silent  and 
secret  background  of  all  things;  sometimes  his 
influence  seems  almost  tangible,  as  in  the  case  of 
exceptionally  great  and  impressive  events  and  per- 
sonalities;   we  divine  his  control  in  the  marvellous 

1  Compare  my  Commentary  on  Genesis,  pp.  78  ff. 


SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  LEGENDS.  9 

interdependence  of  things;  but  nowhere  does  he 
appear  as  an  operative  factor  beside  others,  but 
always  as  the  last  and  ultimate  cause  of  everything. 
Very  different  is  the  point  of  view  of  many  of  the 
narratives  in  Genesis.  We  find  God  walking  about 
La  the  Garden  of  Eden;  with  his  own  hands  he  fash- 
ions man  and  closes  the  door  of  the  ark;  he  even 
breathes  his  own  breath  into  man's  nostrils,  and  \, 
makes  unsuccessful  experiments  with  animals;  he 
scents  the  sacrifice  of  Noah;  he  appears  to  Abraham 
and  Lot  in  the  guise  of  a  wayfarer,  or,  as  an  angel, 
calls  directly  out  of  Heaven.  Once,  indeed,  God 
appears  to  Abraham  in  his  proper  form,  having  the 
appearance  of  a  burning  torch  and  of  a  smoking  bak- 
ing-pot (the  Revised  Version  in  English  has  here 
"furnace").  The  speeches  of  God  in  Genesis  are 
remarkable  for  the  fact  that  his  words  are  not  heard 
in  the  obscure  moments  of  intensest  human  excite- 
ment, in  the  state  of  ecstasy,  as  was  the  case  with 
the  prophets  when  they  heard  the  voice  of  God,  but 
that  God  speaks  in  all  respects  as  does  one  man  to 
another.  We  are  able  to  comprehend  this  as  the 
naive  conception  of  the  men  of  old,  but  we  cannot 
regard  belief  in  the  literal  truth  of  such  accounts  as 
an  essential  of  religious  conviction. 

And  these  arguments  are  immensely  strengthened 
when  we  compare  the  narratives  which  on  inner  evi- 
dence we  regard  as  poetry  with  the  specimens  which 
we  know  of  strict  Israelitish  history.  For  these 
violations  of  probability  and  even  of  possibility  are 
not  found  throughout  the  Old  Testament,  but  only 
in  certain  definite  portions  possessing  a  uniform 
tone,  whereas  they  are  not  to  be  found  in  other  por- 
tions  which  for  other   reasons  we  regard  as   more 


10  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

strictly  historical.  Consider  especially  the  central 
portion  of  the  Second  Book  of  Samuel,  the  history 
of  the  rebellion  of  Absalom,  the  most  exquisite 
piece  of  early  historical  writing  in  Israel.  The 
world  that  is  there  portrayed  is  the  world  that  we 
know.  In  this  world  iron  does  not  float  and  ser- 
pents do  not  speak;  no  god  or  angel  appears  like  a 
person  among  other  persons,  but  everything  hap- 
pens as  we  are  used  to  seeing  things  happen.  In  a 
word,  the  distinction  between  legend  and  history  is 
not  injected  into  the  Old  Testament,  but  is  to  be 
found  by  any  attentive  reader  already  present  in  the 
Old  Testament. 

Moreover,  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  many 
of  the  legends  of  the  Old  Testament  are  not  only 
similar  to  those  of  other  nations,  but  are  actually 
related  to  them  by  origin  and  nature.  Now  we  can- 
not regard  the  story  of  the  Deluge  in  Genesis  as 
history  and  that  of  the  Babylonians  as  legend;  in 
fact,  the  account  of  the  Deluge  in  Genesis  is  a 
younger  version  of  the  Babylonian  legend.  Neither 
can  we  reject  all  other  cosmogonies  as  fiction  and 
defend  that  of  Genesis  as  history;  on  the  contrary 
the  account  of  Genesis  i.,  greatly  as  it  differs  in  its 
religious  spirit  from  other  cosmogonies,  is  by  its 
literary  method  closely  related  to  them. 

LEGEND    IS    POETRY. 

But  the  important  point  is  and  will  remain  the 
poetic  tone  of  the  narratives.  History,  which 
claims  to  inform  us  of  what  has  actually  happened, 
is  in  its  very  nature  prose,  while  legend  is  by  nature 
poetry,  its  aim  being  to  please,  to  elevate,  to  inspire 
and  to  move.     He  who  wishes  to  do  justice  to   such 


SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  LEGENDS.  11 

narratives  must  have  some  aesthetic  faculty,  to 
catch  in  the  telling  of  a  story  what  it  is  and  what  it 
purports  to  be.  And  in  doing  so  he  is  not  express- 
ing a  hostile  or  even  skeptical  judgment,  but  simply 
studying  lovingly  the  nature  of  his  material.  Who- 
ever possesses  heart  and  feeling  must  perceive,  for 
instance  in  the  case  of  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  that  the 
important  matter  is  not  to  establish  certain  historical 
facts,  but  to  impart  to  the  hearer  the  heartrending 
grief  of  the  father  who  is  commanded  to  sacrifice  his  ^ 
child  with  his  own  hand,  and  then  his  boundless 
gratitude  and  joy  when  God's  mercy  releases  him 
from  this  grievous  trial.  And  every  one  who  per- 
ceives the  peculiar  poetic  charm  of  these  old 
legends  must  feel  irritated  by  the  barbarian — for 
there  are  pious  barbarians — who  thinks  he  is  putting 
the  true  value  upon  these  narratives  only  when  he 
treats  them  as  prose  and  history. 

The  conclusion,  then,  that  one  of  these  narratives 
is  legend  is  by  no  means  intended  to  detract  from 
the  value  of  the  narrative;  it  only  means  that  the 
one  who  pronounces  it  has  perceived  somewhat  of 
the  poetic  beauty  of  the  narrative  and  thinks  that  he 
has  thus  arrived  at  an  understanding  of  the  story. 
Only  ignorance  can  regard  such  a  conclusion  as 
irreverent,  for  it  is  the  judgment  of  reverence  and 
love.  These  poetic  narratives  are  the  most  beauti- 
ful possession  which  a  people  brings  down  through 
the  course  of  its  history,  and  the  legends  of  Israel, 
especially  those  of  Genesis,  are  perhaps  the  most 
beautiful  and  most  profound  ever  known  on  earth. 

A  child,  indeed,  unable  to  distinguish  between 
reality  and  poetry,  loses  something  when  it  is  told 
that   its   dearest   stories    are    "not   true."     But  the 


12        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

modern  theologian  should  be  further  developed. 
The  evangelical  churches  and  their  chosen  repre- 
sentatives would  do  well  not  to  dispute  the  fact  that 
Genesis  contains  legends — as  has  been  done  too 
frequently — but  to  recognise  that  the  knowledge  of 
this  fact  is  the  indispensable  condition  to  an  his- 
torical understanding  of  Genesis.  This  knowledge 
is  already  too  widely  diffused  among  those  trained 
in  historical  study  ever  again  to  be  suppressed.  It 
will  surely  spread  among  the  masses  of  our  people, 
for  the  process  is  irresistible.  Shall  not  we  Evan- 
gelicals take  care  that  it  be  presented  to  them  in  the 
right  spirit? 


II. 


THE  VARIETIES  OF  LEGENDS  IN 
GENESIS. 

IN  the  great  mass  of  our  materials  two  groups  are 
distinctly  recognisable: 

i.  The  legends  of  the  origin  of  the  world  and  of 
the  progenitors  of  the  human  race,  the  stories  down 
to  the  tower  of  Babel,  their  locality  being  remote 
and    their    sphere    of    interest    the    whole    world; 

2.  The  legends  of  the  patriarchs  of  Israel:  Abra- 
ham, Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  the  latter's  sons,  the 
locality  and  the  sphere  of  interest  being  Canaan  and 
adjacent  lands. 

Even  in  their  character  the  two  groups  are  most 
plainly  distinguished:  the  narratives  of  the  first 
group  speak  of  God  in  a  way  different  from  that  of 
the  legends  of  the  patriarchs.  In  the  latter  the 
divinity  appears  always  enveloped  in  mystery, 
unrecognised  or  speaking  out  of  Heaven,  or  per- 
haps only  in  a  dream.  In  the  earlier  legends,  on 
the  contrary,  God  walks  intimately  among  men  and 
no  one  marvels  at  it:  in  the  legend  of  Paradise  men 
dwell  in  God's  house;  it  is  assumed  that  he  is  in  the 
habit  of  visiting  them  every  evening;  he  even  closes 
the  ark  for  Noah,  and  appears  to  him  in  person, 
attracted  by  his  sacrifice.  Furthermore,  in  the 
legends  of  the  patriarchs  the  real  actors  are  always 
men;    if  the  divinity  appears,  it  is  regarded  as  an 

13 


14        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS 

exception.  But  in  the  primitive  legends  the  divinity 
is  the  leading  actor  (as  in  the  creation),  or  at  least 
among  those  chiefly  concerned  (as  in  the  story  of 
Paradise,  of  the  union  of  men  and  of  angels,  of  the 
Deluge  and  the  Tower  of  Babel).  This  distinction 
is,  to  be  sure,  only  relative,  for  some  of  the  legends 
of  the  patriarchs  (notably  those  connected  with 
Hebron  and  Penuel)  represent  the  divinity  as 
appearing  in  the  same  way.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
story  of  Cain  and  Abel  and  that  of  the  cursing  of 
Canaan,  in  which  human  beings  are  the  chief  actors, 
are  among  the  primitive  legends.  However,  the 
distinction  applies  on  the  whole  to  the  two  groups. 
This  prominence  of  the  action  of  the  divinity  in  the 
primitive  legends  indicates  that  these  have  a  more 
decidedly  "mythical"  character:  that  they  are  faded 
myths. 

r-hA^  SOME    LEGENDS    ARE    FADED    MYTHS. 

"Myths" — let  no  one  shrink  from  the  word — are 
stories  of  the  gods,  in  contradistinction  to  the 
legends  in  which  the  actors  are  men.  Stories  of  the 
gods  are  in  all  nations  the  oldest  narratives;  the 
legend  as  a  literary  variety  has  its  origin  in  myths. 
Accordingly,  when  we  find  that  these  primitive 
legends  are  akin  to  myths,  we  must  infer  that  they 
have  come  down  to  us  in  comparatively  ancient 
form.  They  come  from  a  period  of  Israel's  history 
when  the  childlike  belief  of  the  people  had  not  yet 
fully  arrived  at  the  conception  of  a  divinity  whose 
operations  are  shrouded  in  mystery.  On  the  other 
hand,  these  original  myths  have  reached  us  in  com- 
paratively faded  colors.  This  we  can  perceive  in 
the    narratives   themselves,    where  we    are    able    in 


VARIETIES  OF  THE  LEGENDS  15 

some  points  to  reconstruct  an  older  form  of  the 
story  than  the  one  transmitted  to  us:  notably 
Genesis  vi.  1-4  is  nothing  but  a  torso. 

We  are  led  to  similar  conclusions  when  we  com- 
pare the  primitive  legends  with  the  allusions  to  the 
myths  which  we  find  in  the  poets  and  prophets  of 
the  Old  Testament  and  the  later  apocalyptic  writ- 
ers;1 as,  for  instance,  the  myths  of  Jahveh's  combat 
with  Rahab  or  Leviathan,  of  the  fall  of  Helal,  and 
so  on.  The  same  result  very  clearly  follows  a  com- 
parison of  the  primitive  legends  of  Genesis  with  the 
myths  of  the  Orient,  especially  of  the  biblical  story 
of  the  creation  and  the  Deluge  with  the  Babylonian 
versions  of  the  same  subjects.  The  colossal  out- 
lines, the  peculiarly  brilliant  colors  which  character- 
ise these  myths  in  the  original  form  are  lost  in  a 
measure  in  the  biblical  legends  of  the  beginnings  of 
things.  The  equivalence  of  the  divine  beings  and 
the  objects  or  realms  of  nature,  the  combat  of  the 
gods  with  one  another,  the  birth  of  the  gods,  are 
some  of  the  features  which  have  disappeared  in  the 
version  of  Genesis. 

MONOTHEISM    HOSTILE    TO    MYTHS. 

In  all  this  we  can  see  the  essential  character  of 
the  religion  of  Israel.  The  fundamental  trait  of  the 
religion  of  Jahveh  is  unfavorable  to  myths.  For 
this  religion  from  it9  very  beginning  tends  toward 
monotheism.  But  for  a  story  of  the  gods  at  least 
two  gods  are  essential.  Therefore  the  Israel  which 
we  observe  in  the  Old  Testament  could  not  tolerate 
genuine  and  unmodified  myths,  at  least  not  in  prose. 

1  Compare  the  material  gathered  in  my  work  Creation  and 
Chaos,  1895. 


r 


16        THE  LEGENDS  OE  GENESIS. 

The  poet  was  excused  for  occasional  allusions  to 
myths.  Hence  in  poetry  we  find  preserved  traces 
of  a  point  of  view  older  than  that  of  the  tradition  of 
Genesis,  one  frankly  familiar  with  myths.  But  the 
primitive  legends  preserved  to  us  are  all  dominated 
by  this  unspoken  aversion  to  mythology. 

The  ^monotheism  of  Israel  tolerates  only  those 
myths  that  represent  God  as  acting  alone7~as  in  the 
story  of  the  creation,  and  even  then  there  is  no  real 
"story,"  where  action  and  counter-action  give  rise 
to  a  new  situation  or  action.  Or  at  the  most,  the 
story  deals  with  action  between  God  and  men, 
where,  however,  men  are  too  weak  in  the  true 
Israelitish  conception  to  be  worthy  rivals  of  God,  to 
produce  in  their  clash  with  God  a  real  epic  action; 
as  soon  as  God  intervenes  all  is  decided.  If  in  such 
a  case  a  "story"  is  to  be  told,  men  must  perform 
their  part  first.  This  is  the  method  of  the  legends 
of  Paradise  and  of  the  Tower  of  Babel.  With  the 
story  of  the  Deluge  it  is  different,  God  taking  part 
from  the  beginning;  but  as  a  result  of  this  the  con- 
tinued interest  of  the  hearer  is  not  maintained. 
Furthermore,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  legends 
preserved  to  us  with  mythical  elements  are  much 
less  numerous  than  the  legends  of  the  patriarchs  in 
which  this  element  is  absent.  This  fact  also  may 
fairly  be  regarded  as  a  result  of  the  Israelitish  aver- 
sion to  mythology. 

THE    SIGNIFICANCE    OF    MYTHS. 

It  is  not  proposed  to  present  here  a  theory  of  the 
origin  and  primitive  significance  of  myths.  Only  a 
few  observations  may  be  permitted.  A  certain 
series  of  myths  may  be  interpreted  on  the  assump- 


VARIETIES  OF  THE  LEGENDS.  17 

tion  that  some  natural  phenomenon  that  is  wont  to 
occur  frequently  or  regularly  in  the  actual  world 
has  furnished  the  colors  for  the  painting  of  one  sim- 
ilar but  gigantic  phenomenon  in  primitive  times. 
Thus  the  creation  of  the  world  is  painted  as  Spring 
on  a  grand  scale,  and  the  overflows  of  the  rivers  of 
Mesopotamia  gave  rise  to  the  story  of  the  Deluge. 

Many  myths  attempt  to  answer  questions,  being 
intended  to  give  instruction.  This  is  the  case  with 
the  primitive  legends  of  Genesis:  the  story  of  crea- 
tion raises  the  question,  Whence  come  heaven  and 
earth?  and  at  the  same  time,  Why  is  the  Sabbath 
sacred?  The  story  of  Paradise  treats  the  question, 
Whence  are  man's  reason  and  his  mortality?  and 
along  with  this,  Whence  are  man's  body  and  mind? 
Whence  his  language?  Whence  the  love  of  the 
sexes?  Whence  does  it  come  that  woman  brings  forth 
with  so  much  pain,  that  man  must  till  the  stubborn 
field,  that  the  serpent  goes  upon  its  belly,  and  so 
on?  The  legend  of  Babel  asks  the  question,  Whence 
is  the  variety  of  nations  in  language  and  location? 
The  answers  to  these  questions  constitute  the  real 
content  of  the  respective  legends.  In  the  case  of 
the  legend  of  the  Deluge  this  is  different,  but  there 
is  an  astiological,  or  explanatory  feature  at  the 
close:  Why  is  there  never  such  a  flood  again?  And 
what  is  the  meaning  of  the  rainbow? 

All  these  questions  interest  not  Israel  alone,  but 
the  whole  world.  We  know  that  ancient  Israel  in 
general  was  not  inclined  to  philosophic  speculation, 
but  that  it  always  took  most  interest  in  immediate 
and  Israelitish  affairs.  But  here  is  a  place  in  which 
the  ancient  race  is  able  to  treat  universal  human 
problems,    the  profoundest   questions    of  mankind. 


18        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

This  they  have  done  in  unique  fashion  in  the  stories 
of  the  creation  and  of  Eden:  these  are  the  begin- 
nings of  theology  and  of  philosophy.  It  is  no  won- 
der that  especial  emphasis  has  been  laid  upon  these 
features,  and  that  every  generation,  since  Genesis 
has  been  known,  has  read  into  it  its  own  deepest 
thoughts. 

THE  LEGENDS  OF  THE  PARTIARCHS. 

The  primitive  legends  are  followed  in  Genesis  by 
the  legends  of  the  patriarchs.  The  distinctive 
feature  of  these  legends  is  that  they  tell  of  the  pro- 
genitors of  races,  especially  of  Israel.  At  the  foun- 
dation of  these  legends  lies  the  theory  that  all 
races,  Israel  included,  have  come  in  each  case  from 
the  family  of  a  single  ancestor,  which  gradually 
expanded.  This  theory  is  not  supported  by 
observed  facts,  for  no  human  eye  observes  the  origin 
of  races;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  the  remnant  of  a 
primitive  poetic  conception  of  tribal  life. 

In  earliest  times  the  individual  man  counts  for 
little.  There  is  much  more  interest  in  the  destinies 
of  the  race:  the  tribe,  the  nation,  are  regarded  as 
real  entities  much  more  than  at  the  present  day. 
Thus  it  comes  that  the  destinies  of  the  race  are 
regarded  as  being  the  destinies  of  a  person:  the  race 
sighs,  triumphs,  is  dejected,  rebels,  dies,  comes  to 
life  again,  etc.  Thus  too  the  relations  of  races  are 
regarded  as  the  relations  of  individuals:  two  races 
it  is  said,  are  brothers,  i.  e.,  are  closely  related  and 
equal;  if  one  of  them  is  regarded  as  richer,  stronger, 
or  nobler,  it  is  said  to  be  the  firstborn  brother, 
or  it  comes  of  a  better  mother,  while  the  other 
is  younger,  or  comes  of  a  concubine.     Israel  being 


VARIETIES  OF  THE  LEGENDS.  19 

divided  into  twelve  tribes,  we  are  told  that  the 
tribal  ancestor  of  Israel  had  twelve  sons.  Some  of 
these  tribes  having  a  closer  union  with  one  another, 
they  are  said  to  come  from  one  mother.  The  rela- 
tion of  mother  and  son  exists  between  Hagar  and 
Ishmael;  the  more  distant  relation  of  uncle  and 
nephew  between  Abraham  and  Lot. 

Originally  these  persons  were  the  tribes  them- 
selves. This  method  of  expression  is  still  entirely 
current  later  in  the  pathetic  poetry  of  the  prophets: 
Edom  builds  his  nest  on  high,  Moab  dies  to  the 
sound  of  trumpets,  Asshur  falls  upon  Israel  like  a 
lion  upon  his  prey,  Jerusalem  and  Samaria  are  two 
unchaste  sisters,  Edom  has  treated  his  brother 
Israel  with  enmity,  etc.  Such  personifications  must 
have  been  very  familiar  to  the  earliest  ages.  But 
as  the  world  became  more  prosaic  and  these  expres- 
sions were  no  longer  understood  in  the  simple  nar- 
rative, the  question  was  asked,  who  these  persons, 
Jacob,  Judah,  Simeon,  really  were,  and  the  answer 
given  that  they  were  the  patriarchs  and  the  later 
races  and  tribes  their  sons;  an  answer  which  seems 
to  be  a  matter  of  course,  since  it  was  customary  to 
refer  to  the  individual  Israelites  and  Ammonites  as 
"Sons  of  Israel"  and  "Sons  of  Ammon." 

PATRIARCHS    REPRESENT    TRIBES. 

We  are  not  putting  a  new  meaning  into  the 
legends  which  treat  of  such  race-individuals,  when 
we  regard  their  heroes,  Ishmael,  Jacob,  Esau,  and 
others,  as  tribes  and  try  to  interpret  the  stories 
about  them  as  tribal  events;  we  are  simply  getting 
at  their  meaning  as  it  was  understood  in  primitive 
times  in  Israel. 


20        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  must  go  about  this  attempt 
with  caution,  for  we  must  reckon  with  the  possi- 
bility that  some  of  these  figures  do  not  originally 
represent  tribes,  but  only  came  to  be  regarded  as 
patriarchs  in  a  later  time,  and  further,  after  the  fig- 
ures of  the  patriarchs  had  once  become  established 
as  the  heroes  of  epic  legends,  that  legends  of  other 
sorts  and  wanting  the  basis  of  tribal  history  became 
attached  to  these.  We  may  certainly  regard  as 
personifications  of  tribes  those  figures  whose  names 
are  known  to  us  in  other  connexions  as  names  of 
tribes;  such  are,  notably:  Ishmael,  Ammon,  Moab, 
the  twelve  tribes  and  their  divisions.  Sometimes  it 
is  perfectly  evident  from  the  narratives  themselves 
that  we  have  to  do  with  tribes,  as  in  the  case  of  c$ 
Cain  and  Abel,  Jacob  and  Esau,  Ham  and  Japhet. 
Accordingly,  many  of  the  narratives  treating  such  pn 
ancestors  are  originally  the  experiences  of  races  or 
tribes. 

Once  in  ancient  times,  so  we  may  assume,  there 
were  conflicts  over  wells  between  the  citizens  of 
Gerar  and  the  neighboring  Bedouins,  ending  in  a 
compromise  at  Beersheba.  The  legend  depicts  these 
affairs  as  a  war  and  a  treaty  between  Abimelech, 
king  of  Gerar,  and  the  patriarchs  called  in  the 
legend  Abraham  or  Isaac,     (xxi,  22  ff.,  26.) 

Dinah,    the    daughter    of    Jacob,    is    seduced   by 

v  Shechem,  and   in  punishment  Shechem  is  treacher- 

y    ously  assaulted  by  Dinah's  brothers;    Jacob,   how- 

/n-    ever,   abjures  the  brothers  and   curses   them.     The 

<s    history  at  the  bottom  of  this  is  probably  as  follows: 

^  Dinah,  an  Israelitish  family,  is  overpowered  by  the 

\J     Canaanitish  city  of  Shechem  and  then  treacherously 

avenged    by  Simeon   and    Levi,    the    most    closely 


VARIETIES  OF  THE  LEGENDS.  21 

related  tribes,  but  the  other  tribes  of  Israel  renounce 

them  and  allow  the  two  tribes  to  be  destroyed. 

A        The  legend  of  Tamar,  also,  depicts  in  part  early 

"'relations  in    the    tribe    of   Judah:    Judah  allied    it- 

self  with  Canaanites,  in  the  legend   Hirah  of  Adul- 

lam    and   Judah's    wife,    Bathshua;     a    number    of 

^    Judaean-Canaanitish   tribes  (Er  and  Onan)  perished 

c-    early;    finally    two    new   tribes    arose     (Perez    and 

'  Zerah).     In  the   Esau-Jacob  legend  also  there  are 

quite  evidently  historical  reminiscences:    Esau  and 

Jacob  are  brother  tribes,  Esau  a  tribe  of  hunters, 

Jacob  a  tribe  of  shepherds;    Esau  is  the  elder,  but 

by  sale  or  fraud  he  loses  his  birthright,  that  is,  the 

older  and  better  known  tribe  of  Esau  was  compelled 

to  give  way  to  the  later  and  originally  weaker  tribe 

of  Jacob  and  has  now  the  poorer  land. 

A  similar  rivalry  is  assumed  by  the  legend 
between  the  Judaean  tribes  of  Perez  and  Zerah  and 
between  Ephraim  and  Manasseh.  Reuben,  the 
first-born  among  the  Israelitish  tribes,  loses  his 
birthright  on  account  of  sin:  the  tribe  of  Reuben, 
which  was  the  leading  tribe  in  the  earliest  times, 
afterwards  forfeited  this  position.  Cain,  the  hus- 
bandman, slew  his  brother  Abel,  the  herdsman,  but 
was  compelled  to  leave  the  land  which  they  had 
before  occupied  in  common.  Shem,  Japhet,  and 
Canaan  are  originally  brothers;  but  Japhet  has  now 
a  much  more  extensive  territory  than  the  others, 
and  Canaan  is  the  servant  of  both. 

We  hear  of  many  migrations.  From  the  north 
Abraham  migrates  to  Canaan,  after  him  Rebeccah, 
to  marry  Isaac,  and  finally  comes  Jacob;  the  initial 
point  of  the  migration  is  given  as  Ur-Kasdim  and 
Haran  the  city  of  Nahor  (xxiv.  10).     In  the   legend 


? 


22        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

of  Joseph  there  is  described  a  migration  of  Israel- 
itish  tribes  to  Egypt;  the  account  of  the  trip  of 
Abraham  to  Egypt  has  a  similar  basis. 

Now  it  is  in  the  nature  of  legend  that  we  do  not 
catch  sight  of  these  old  occurrences  clearly  by  its 
means,  but  only  as  through  a  mist.  Legend  has 
woven  a  poetic  veil  about  the  historical  memories 
and  hidden  their  outlines.  In  most  cases  the  time 
of  the  event  is  not  to  be  derived  from  the  legend 
itself;  often  even  the  place  is  not  to  be  distin- 
guished, and  sometimes  not  even  the  personality  of 
the  actor.  Who  can  tell  what  race  it  was  that  came 
to  Canaan  from  Aram-Naharajim?  Where  the  real 
home  of  Jacob  and  Esau  was,  of  Cain  and  Abel,  of 
Shem  and  Japhet,  the  legend  has  forgotten.  What 
tribes  parted  at  Bethel,  in  case  there  is  any  histor- 
ical basis  to  the  legend  of  the  separation  of  Lot  and 
Abraham?  And  so,  although  the  things  of  the  past 
are  hidden  rather  than  revealed  in  these  legends, 
he  would  be  a  barbarian  who  would  despise  them  on 
this  account,  for  often  they  are  more  valuable  than 
would  be  prosaic  reports  of  actual  occurrences. 
For  instance,  if  we  had  good  historical  data  regard- 
ing Ishmael  we  should  not  value  them  highly,  for 
this  "wild  ass"  rendered  little  service  to  mankind; 
y^but  as  it  is,  touched  by  the  hand  of  poetry,  he  is 
immortal. 

In  these  legends  the  clearest-  matter  is  the  char- 
acter of  races:  here  is  Esau,  the  huntsman  of  the 
steppes,  living  with  little  reflexion  from  hand  to 
mouth,  forgetful,  magnanimous,  brave,  and  hairy  as 
a  goat;  and  there  is  Jacob  the  herdsman,  a  smooth 
man,  more  cunning  and  accustomed  to  look  into  the 
future.       His    uncle    Laban    is    the    type    of    the 


VARIETIES  OF  THE  LEGENDS.  23 

Aramaean,  avaricious  and  deceitful,  but  to  outward 
appearances  an  excellent  and  upright  man,  never  at 
loss  for  an  excuse.  A  more  noble  figure  is 
Abraham,  hospitable,  peaceful,  a  model  of  piety. 

Moreover  it  is  clear  to  us  in  many  cases  in  what 
spirit  the  incidents  are  regarded:  we  perceive  most 
easily  how  the  legend  despises  the  unchastity  of 
Canaan,  how  it  mocks  at  Esau  and  Laban,  how  it 
rejoices  that  Lot,  with  all  his  avarice,  obtained 
after  all  the  worse  land,  etc. 

ANTIQUITY    OF    THE    LEGENDS. 

These  legends  have  not  hitherto  received  full  jus- 
tice, even  when  it  has  been  recognised  that  they  are 
legends.  Even  the  most  superficial  reader  can  dis- 
tinguish for  himself  the  chief  original  sources  in 
Genesis  from  which  the  present  redaction  was  con- 
structed, now  commonly  called  the  writings  of  the 
Elohist,  of  the  Jahvist,  and  of  the  Priestly  Code. 
Since  the  sources  of  the  Elohist  and  the  Jahvist 
were  written  down  in  the  ninth  or  eight  century  B. 
C,  some  commentators  have  been  disposed  to  think 
that  the  legends  themselves  originated  in  the  main 
in  the  age  of  the  Israelitish  kingdom  and  furnished 
therefore  no  revelations  of  primitive  history.  But 
in  reality  these  legends  are  much  older.  The 
tribal  and  race  names  which  they  preserve  are 
almost  all  forgotten  in  other  records:  we  know 
nothing  of  Shem,  Ham,  and  Japhet,  of  Abel  and 
Cain,  of  Esau  and  Jacob,  nothing  of  Hagar  and 
scarcely  anything  of  Ishmael,  from  the  historical 
records  of  Israel.  Hence  we  must  conclude  that 
these  races  all  belong  to  prehistoric  times.  This  is 
particularly  evident  in  the  case  of  Jacob  and   Esau, 


\ 


24        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

who  were,  to  be  sure,  identified  later  with  Israel 
and  Edom.  But  this  very  lapping  of  names,  as 
well  as  many  features  of  the  legend  which  are  not 
applicable  to  Israel  and  Edom,  as,  for  instance,  the 
treaties  between  the  city  of  Gerar  and  the  sons  of 
Abraham  (or  Isaac)  concerning  the  possession  of 
certain  wells,  especially  that  of  Beersheba,  show  us 
that  the  old  narrative  originally  had  in  mind 
entirely  different  races;  in  the  legend  Jacob  is  not 
disposed  to  war;  in  history  Israel  conquered  Edom 
in  war;  in  the  legend  Esau  is  stupid,  in  history  he 
is  famous  for  his  wisdom. 

Another  proof  of  the  age  of  these  tribal  legends 
may  be  found  in  the  history  of  the  legend  in  Israel. 
The  legends  in  the  Book  of  Judges  have  ceased  to 
speak  of  tribes  as  persons  (excepting  Judges  i.),  but 
they  tell  of  heroes,  of  individual  leaders  of  the 
tribes.  The  latest  story  that  preserves  the  old 
style  and  to  which  an  historical  date  can  be  assigned 
is  the  legend  of  the  capture  of  Shechem,  the  Dinah 
legend  of  Genesis.  Sometime  in  the  earlier  por- 
tion of  the  period  of  Judges,  then,  this  naive  style 
of  narrative  disappeared  so  far  as  we  can  ascertain; 
from  that  time  on  such  narratives  are  merely  trans- 
mitted, but  no  longer  constructed  new. 

CLASSIFICATION    OF    LEGENDS. 

We  call  these  legends  "historical"  when  they 
reflect  historical  occurrences,  "ethnographic"  when 
they  contain  chiefly  descriptions  of  race  and  tribal 
relations.  Thus  we  characterise  the  legend  of  the 
treaty  of  Beersheba  and  the  various  legends  of 
migrations  as  "historical,"  but  those  of  Jacob  and 
Esau  as  "ethnographic." 


VARIETIES  OF  THE  LEGENDS.  25 


-ETIOLOGICAL    LEGENDS. 

Alongside  these  narratives  of  Genesis  are  also 
"aetiological"  legends,  that  is,  those  that  are  writ- 
ten for  a  purpose,  or  to  explain  something.  There 
is  no  end  of  the  questions  which  interest  a  primi- 
tive people.  The  instinct  for  asking  questions  is 
innate  in  man:  he  wants  to  know  of  the  origin  of 
things.  The  child  looks  into  the  world  with  wide 
eyes  and  asks,  Why?  The  answer  which  the  child 
gives  itself  and  with  which  it  is  for  the  time  satis- 
fied, is  perhaps  very  childish,  and  hence  incorrect, 
and  yet,  if  it  is  a  bright  child  the  answer  is 
interesting  and  touching  even  for  the  grown  man. 
In  the  same  way  a  primitive  people  asks  similar 
questions  and  answers  them  as  best  it  can. 
These  questions  are  usually  the  same  that  we  our- 
selves are  asking  and  trying  to  answer  in  our  scien- 
tific researches.  Hence  what  we  find  in  these 
legends  are  the  beginnings  of  human  science;  only 
humble  beginnings,  of  course,  and  yet  venerable  to 
us  because  they  are  beginnings,  and  at  the  same 
time  peculiarly  attractive  and  touching,  for  in  these 
answers  ancient  Israel  has  uttered  its  most  intimate 
feelings,  clothing  them  in  a  bright  garb  of  poetry. 
Some  of  these  questions  are  the  following: 

ETHNOLOGICAL    LEGENDS. 

There  is  a  desire  to  know  the  reasons  for  the  rela- 
tions of  tribes.  Why  is  Canaan  the  servant  of  his 
brethren?  Why  has  Japhet  such  an  extended  terri- 
tory? Why  do  the  children  of  Lot  dwell  in  the 
inhospitable  East?  How  does  it  come  that  Reuben 
has   lost   his   birthright?      Why  must   Cain   wander 


26        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

about  a  restless  fugitive?  Why  is  sevenfold  venge- 
ance proclaimed  against  the  slayer  of  Cain?  Why 
is  Gilead  the  border  between  Israel  and  the  Ara- 
maeans? Why  does  Beersheba  belong  to  us  and  not 
to  the  people  of  Gerar?  Why  is  Shechem  in  pos- 
session of  Joseph?  Why  have  we  a  right  to  the  holy 
places  at  Shechem  and  Machpelah?  Why  has 
Ishmael  become  a  Bedouin  people  with  just  this  ter- 
ritory and  this  God?  How  does  it  come  that  the 
Egyptian  peasants  have  to  bear  the  heavy  tax  of  the 
fifth,  while  the  fields  of  the  priests  are  exempt? 
And  with  especial  frequency  the  question  was  asked, 
How  does  Israel  come  to  have  this  glorious  land  of 
Canaan? 

The  legends  tell  in  many  variations  how  it  came 
about  that  the  patriarchs  received  this  particular 
land:  God  gave  it  to  Abraham  because  of  his 
obedience;  when  on  the  occasion  of  the  separation 
at  Bethel  Lot  chose  the  East,  the  West  fell  to 
Abraham;  Jacob  obtained  the  blessing  of  the  better 
country  from  Isaac  by  a  deception;  God  promised 
it  to  Jacob  at  Bethel,  and  so  on. 

Such  ethnological  legends,  which  tell  a  fictitious 
story  in  order  to  explain  tribal  relations,  are  of 
course  very  difficult  to  distinguish  from  historical 
legends  which  contain  the  remnant  of  a  tradition  of 
some  actual  event.  Very  commonly  ethnological 
and  ethnographic  features  are  combined  in  the  same 
legend:  the  relations  underlying  the  story  are  his- 
torical, but  the  way  in  which  they  are  explained  is 
poetic. 

The  usual  nature  of  the  answer  given  to  these 
questions  by  our  legends  is  that  the  present  rela- 
tions are  due  to  some  transaction  of  the  patriarchs: 


VARIETIES  OF  THE  LEGENDS.  27 

the  tribal  ancestor  bought  the  holy  place,  and 
accordingly  it  belongs  to  us,  his  heirs;  the  ancestors 
of  Israel  and  Aram  established  Gilead  as  their 
mutual  boundary;  Cain's  ancestor  was  condemned 
to  perpetual  wandering  by  the  word  of  God,  and  so 
on.  A  favorite  way  is  to  find  the  explanation  in  a 
miraculous  utterance  of  God  or  some  of  the  patri- 
archs, and  the  legend  has  to  tell  how  this  mirac- 
ulous utterance  came  to  be  made  in  olden  times. 
And  this  sort  of  explanation  was  regarded  as  com- 
pletely satisfactory,  so  that  there  came  to  be  later 
a  distinct  literary  variety  of  "charm"  or  '"bless- 
in}.  Vi 

Childish  as  these  explanations  now  seem  to  us, 
and  impossible  as  it  was  for  the  men  of  old  to  find 
out  the  true  reasons  of  such  things,  yet  we  must  not 
overlook  the  profundity  of  many  of  these  poetic 
legends:  they  are  all  based  on  the  assumption  that 
the  tribal  and  national  relations  of  that  day  were 
not  due  to  chance,  but  that  they  were  all  the  results 
of  events  of  the  primitive  world,  that  they  were  in  a 
way  "predestined."  In  these  legends  we  have  the 
first  rudiments  of  a  philosophy  of  history. 

ETYMOLOGICAL    LEGENDS. 

Along  with  the  above  we  find  etymological 
legends  or  features  of  legends,  as  it  were,  begin- 
nings of  the  science  of  language.  Ancient  Israel 
spent  much  thought  upon  the  origin  and  the  real 
meaning  of  the  names  of  races,  mountains,  wells, 
sanctuaries,  and  cities.  To  them  names  were  not 
so  unimportant  as  to  us,  for  they  were  convinced 
that   names   were  somehow  closely  related   to    the 

1  Cp.  Genesis  xlix. 


28        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

things.  It  was  quite  impossible  in  many  cases  for 
the  ancient  people  to  give  the  correct  explanation, 
for  names  were,  with  Israel  as  with  other  nations, 
among  the  most  ancient  possessions  of  the  people, 
coming  down  from  extinct  races  or  from  far  away 
stages  of  the  national  language.  Many  of  our  cur- 
rent names  such  as  Rhine,  Moselle,  Neckar,  Harz, 
Berlin,  London,  Thames,  Seine,  etc.,  are  equally 
unintelligible  to  those  not  trained  in  philology.  It 
is  probable  that  the  very  fact  of  the  oddity  and 
unintelligibility  of  these  names  attracted  the  atten- 
tion of  the  ancient  race.  Early  Israel  as  a  matter 
of  course  explains  such  names  without  any  scientific 
spirit  and  wholly  on  the  basis  of  the  language  as  it 
stood.  It  identifies  the  old  name  with  a  modern 
one  which  sounds  more  or  less  like  it,  and  proceeds 
to  tell  a  little  story  explaining  why  this  particular 
word  was  uttered  under  these  circumstances  and  was 
adopted  as  the  name.  We  too  have  our  popular 
etymologies.  How  many  there  are  who  believe 
that  the  noble  river  which  runs  down  between  New 
Hampshire  and  Vermont  and  across  Massachusetts 
and  Connecticut  is  so  named  because  it  "connects" 
the  first  two  and  "cuts"  the  latter  two  states! 
Manhattan  Island,  it  is  said,  was  named  from  the 
exclamation  of  a  savage  who  was  struck  by  the  size 
of  a  Dutch  hat  worn  by  an  early  burgher,  "Man  hat 
on!"  Many  are  the  stories  told  to  explain  why  a 
famous  London  highway  is  called  "Rotten  Row" 
{Route  en  rot). 

The  Lombards,  we  are  told  by  another  legend, 
were  originally  called  Winili.  But  on  an  occasion 
the  women  of  the  tribe  put  on  beards  as  a  disguise, 
and  Wodan  looking  out  of  his  window  in  the  morn- 


VARIETIES  OF  THE  LEGENDS.  29 

ing  exclaimed,  "What  are  those  'long  beards'  (Lang- 
obarden)?"     (Grimm,  German  Legends,  No.  390.) 

The  famous  Thuringian  castle,  the  Wartburg,  is 
said  to  have  derived  its  name  from  the  fact  that  the 
landgrave,  having  strayed  thither  during  a  hunt, 
exclaimed,  "I  Vart,  Berg,  du  so  list  niir  erne  Burg 
werdei"  (Wait,  mountain,  thou  shalt  become  ray 
fortress). 

Similar  legends  are  numerous  in  Genesis  and  in 
later  works.  The  city  of  Babel  is  named  from  the 
fact  that  God  there  confused  human  tongues  {balal, 
xi.  9);  Jacob  is  interpreted  as  "heelholder"  because 
at  birth  he  held  his  brother,  whom  he  robbed  of  the 
birthright,  by  the  heel  (xxv.  26) ;  Zoar  means 
"trifle,"  because  Lot  said  appealingly,  "It  is  only  a 
trifle'  (xix.  20,  22);  Beersheba  is  "the  well  of 
seven,"  because  Abraham  there  gave  Abimelech 
seven  lambs  (xxi.  28  ff.);  Isaac  (Jishak)  is  said  to 
have  his  name  from  the  fact  that  his  mother  laughed 
(sahak)  when  his  birth  was  foretold  to  her  (xviii.  12), 
and  so  forth. 

In  order  to  realise  the  utter  naivete  of  most  of 
these  interpretations,  consider  that  the  Hebrew 
legend  calmly  explains  the  Babylonian  name  Babel 
from  the  Hebrew  vocabulary,  and  that  the  writers 
are  often  satisfied  with  merely  approximate  similar- 
ities of  sounds:  for  instance  Cain  (more  exactly 
Kajin)  from  kairiti,  "I  have  murdered"  (iv.  1), 
Reuben  from  rah  beo?iji,  "he  hath  regarded  my 
misery"  (xxix.  32),  etc.  Every  student  of  Hebrew 
knows  that  these  are  not  satisfactory  etymologies. 
Investigators  have  not  always  fully  perceived  the 
naive  character  of  this  theory  of  etymology,  but 
have  allowed  themselves  to  be  misled  into  patching 


30        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

up  some  very  unsatisfactory  etymologies  with  mod- 
ern appliances.  In  one  case  many  theologians  even 
are  wont  to  declare  one  of  these  explanations,  a 
very  ingenious  one  indeed  (Jahveh  =  "lam  that  I 
am,"  Ex.  iii.  14)  as  an  established  etymology.  Hut 
etymologies  are  not  acquired  by  revelation.  The 
etymological  legends  are  especially  valuable  to  us 
because  they  are  especially  clear  illustrations  of  the 
serological  variety  of  legend. 

CEREMONIAL    LEGENDS. 

More  important  than  these  etymological  legends 
are  those  whose  purpose  is  to  explain  the  regula- 
tions of  religious  ceremonials.  Such  ceremonial 
regulations  play  a  great  part  in  the  life  of  primitive 
races,  but  many  of  these  customs  had  become  in 
part  or  altogether  unintelligible  to  the  one  who 
observed  them  in  the  earliest  times  of  which  we  have 
authentic  record.  For  customs  are  far  more  persis- 
tent than  opinions,  and  religious  customs  are  partic- 
ularly conservative.  And  even  we,  whose  religious 
service  has  undergone  a  vigorous  purging  in  the 
Reformation  and  again  at  the  hands  of  rationalism, 
see  and  hear  in  our  churches  many  things  which  we 
understand  only  in  part  or  not  at  all. 

Ancient  Israel  reflected  deeply  upon  the  origin  of 
these  religious  practices.  And  if  the  grown  people 
became  too  blunted  by  custom,  to  be  able  to  per- 
ceive the  strange  and  unintelligible  features  of  the 
custom,  they  were  roused  from  their  indifference  by 
the  questions  of  the  children.  When  the  children 
see  their  father  perform  all  sorts  of  curious  customs 
during  the  Feast  of  the  Passover,  they  will  ask — 
thus  it  is  expressly  told,  Ex.  xii.  26;  xiii.  14 — What 


VARIETIES  OF  THE  LEGENDS.  31 

does  this  mean?  and  then  the  story  of  the  Passover 
is  to  be  told  them.  A  similar  direction  is  given 
with  relation  to  the  twelve  stones  in  the  Jordan 
(Josh.  iv.  6),  which  the  father  is  to  explain  to  the 
children  as  memorials  of  the  passage  of  the  Jordan. 
In  these  examples,  then,  we  see  clearly  how  such  a 
legend  is  the  answer  to  a  question.  Similarly, 
questions  are  asked  with  regard  to  the  origin  of 
circumcision,  and  of  the  Sabbath.  Why  do  we  not 
eat  the  muscle  of  the  thigh?  Why  do  they  anoint 
the  holy  stone  of  Bethel  and  deliver  the  tithes 
there?  Why  do  we  not  sacrifice  a  child  at  Jeruel  as 
Jahveh  commands,  but  in  its  stead  a  ram  (Gen. 
xxii.)?  Why  do  our  people  "limp,"  that  is,  per- 
form a  certain  dance,  at  the  festival  in  Penuel 
(xxxii.  32)? 

No  Israelite  could  have  given  the  real  reason  for 
all  these  things,  for  they  were  too  old.  But  to 
relieve  this  embarrassment  myth  and  legend  step 
in.  They  tell  a  story  and  explain  the  sacred  cus- 
tom: long  ago  an  event  occurred  from  which  this 
ceremony  very  naturally  sprang,  and  we  perform  the 
ceremony  representing  the  event  in  commemoration 
of  it.  But  this  story  that  explains  the  custom  is 
always  laid  in  primitive  times.  Thus  the  ancient 
race  gives  the  entirely  correct  impression  that  the 
customs  of  their  religious  service  originated  in  the 
immemorial  past:  the  trees  of  Shechem  and  Hebron 
are  older  than  Abraham!  We  perform  the  rite  of 
circumcision  in  memory  of  Moses,  whose  firstborn 
was  circumcised  as  a  redemption  for  Moses  whose 
blood  God  demanded  (Ex.  iv.  24  ff.).  We  rest  on 
the  seventh  day  because  God  at  the  creation  of  the 
world  rested  on  the  seventh  day  (a  myth,  because 


32        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

God  himself  is  the  actor  in  it).  The  muscle  of  the 
thigh  is  sacred  to  us  because  God  struck  Jacob  on 
this  muscle  while  wrestling  with  him  at  Penuel 
(xxxii.  33).  The  stone  at  Bethel  was  first  anointed 
by  Jacob  because  it  was  his  pillow  in  the  night 
when  God  appeared  to  him  (xxviii.  11  ff.).  At 
Jeruel — this  is  the  name  of  the  scene  of  the  sacrifice 
of  Isaac,  xxii.  1-19  (cf.  the  Commentary,  p.  218  ff.) 
— God  at  first  demanded  of  Abraham  his  child,  but 
afterward  accepted  a  ram.  We  "limp"  at  Penuel 
in  imitation  of  Jacob,  who  limped  there  when  his 
hip  was  lamed  in  the  wrestling  with  God  (xxxii. 
32).     And  so  on. 

In  all  this  matter  we  are  constantly  hearing  of 
certain  definite  places,  such  as  Bethel,  Penuel, 
Shechem,  Beersheba,  Lacha-roi,  Jeruel,  etc.,  and  of 
the  trees,  wells,  and  stone  monuments  at  these 
places.  These  are  the  primitive  sanctuaries  of  the 
tribes  and  families  of  Israel.  Primitive  times  felt 
that  there  was  some  immediate  manifestation  of  the 
nature  of  the  divinity  in  these  monuments,  but  a 
later  time,  which  no  longer  regarded  the  connexion 
as  so  clear  and  so  self-evident,  raised  the  question, 
Why  is  this  particular  place  and  this  sacred 
memorial  so  especially  sacred?  The  regular  answer 
to  this  question  was,  Because  in  this  place  the  divin- 
ity appeared  to  our  ancestor.  In  commemoration  of 
this  theophany  we  worship  God  in  this  place.  Now 
in  the  history  of  religion  it  is  of  great  significance 
that  the  ceremonial  legend  comes  from  a  time  when 
religious  feeling  no  longer  perceived  as  self-evident 
the  divinity  of  the  locality  and  the  natural  monument 
and  had  forgotten  the  significance  of  the  sacred 
ceremony.     Accordingly  the   legend  has  to  supply 


VARIETIES  OF  THE  LEGENDS.  33 

an  explanation  of  how  it  came  about  that  the  God 
and  the  tribal  ancestor  met  in  this  particular  place. 

Abraham  happened  to  be  sitting  under  the  tree  in 
the  noonday  heat  just  as  the  men  appeared  to  him, 
and  for  this  reason  the  tree  is  sacred  (xix.  I  ff.). 
The  well  in  the  desert,  Lacha-roi,  became  the  sanc- 
tuary of  Ishmael  because  his  mother  in  her  flight 
into  the  desert  met  at  this  well  the  God  who  com- 
forted her  (xvi.  7  ff.).  Jacob  happened  to  be  pass- 
ing the  night  in  a  certain  place  and  resting  his  head 
upon  a  stone  when  he  saw  the  heavenly  ladder; 
therefore  this  stone  is  our  sanctuary  (xxviii.  10  ff). 
Moses  chanced  to  come  with  his  flocks  to  the  holy 
mountain  and  the  thornbush  (Ex.  iii.  1  ff.).  Prob- 
ably every  one  of  the  greater  sanctuaries  of  Israel 
had  some  similar  legend  of  its  origin. 

We  can  easily  imagine  that  any  such  legend  of  a 
sanctuary  was  originally  told  on  the  occasion  of  the 
festival  concerned  and  on  the  original  spot,  just  as  the 
Feast  of  the  Passover  and  the  legend  of  the  exodus, 
the  feast  of  Purim  and  the  legend  of  Esther,  the  Baby- 
lonian Easter  festival  and  the  Babylonian  hymn  of 
the  creation,  belong  together,  and  as  with  us  Christ- 
mas and  Easter  are  not  to  be  thought  of  without 
their  stories.  These  ceremonial  legends  are  so 
valuable  to  us  because  we  discover  from  them  what 
were  the  sacred  places  and  customs  of  Israel  and  at 
the  same  time  they  give  us  a  very  vivid  realisation 
of  ancient  religious  feeling:  they  are  our  chief 
sources  of  information  regarding  the  oldest  religion 
of  Israel.  Genesis  is  full  of  them,  and  but  few  are 
found  in  the  later  books.  Almost  everywhere  in 
Genesis  where  a  certain  place  is  named,  and  at 
least  wherever  God  appears  at  a  definite  place,  it  is 


34        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

based  on  such  a  legend.     In  these  legends  we  have 
the  beginning  of  the  history  of  religion. 

GEOLOGICAL  AND  OTHER  LEGENDS. 

Aside  from  the  foregoing  we  may  distinguish  a 
number  of  other  sorts  of  legends,  of  which  at  least 
the  geological  deserves  mention.  Such  geological 
legends  undertake  to  explain  the  origin  of  a 
locality.  Whence  comes  the  Dead  Sea  with  its 
dreadful  desert?  The  region  was  cursed  by  God  on 
account  of  the  terrible  sin  of  its  inhabitants. 
Whence  comes  the  pillar  of  salt  yonder  with  its 
resemblance  to  a  woman?  That  is  a  woman,  Lot's 
wife,  turned  into  a  pillar  of  salt  in  punishment  for 
attempting  to  spy  out  the  mystery  of  God  (xix.  26). 
But  whence  does  it  come  that  the  bit  of  territory 
about  Zoar  is  an  exception  to  the  general  desola- 
tion? Because  Jahveh  spared  it  as  a  refuge  for  Lot 
(xix.  17-22). 

All  these  aetiological  legends,  then,  are  remote 
from  the  standards  of  the  modern  sciences  to  which 
they  correspond;  we  regard  them  with  the  emotion 
with  which  a  man  looks  back  upon  his  childhood. 
But  even  for  our  science  they  have  a  great  value,  for 
they  furnish  us  in  their  descriptions  or  implications 
of  definite  conditions  the  most  important  material 
for  the  knowledge  of  the  ancient  world. 

MIXED    LEGENDS. 

Very  frequently  various  types  of  legend  are  com- 
bined in  one.  The  flight  of  Hagar  (xvi.)  is  to  be 
called  ethnographic  because  it  depicts  the  life  of 
Ishmael;  ethnologic,  because  it  undertakes  to 
explain  these  conditions;  in  one  feature  it  is  allied 


VARIETIES  OF  THE  LEGENDS.  35 

to  the  ceremonial  legends,  its  explanation  of  the 
sacredness  of  Lacha-roi;  furthermore  it  has  etymo- 
logical elements  in  its  interpetation  of  the  names 
Lacha-roi  and  Ishmael. — The  legend  of  Paradise 
treats  all  at  once  a  number  of  questions. — The 
legend  of  Bethel  explains  at  once  the  worship  at 
Bethel  and  the  name  of  the  place. — The  legends  of 
Beersheba  (xxi.,  xxii.  ff.,  xxvi.)  contain  remnants 
of  history,  telling  of  a  tribal  treaty  established 
there,  and  at  the  same  time  certain  religious 
features,  as  the  explanation  of  the  sanctity  of  the 
place,  and  finally  some  etymological  elements. — The 
legend  of  Penuel  explains  the  sanctity  of  the  place, 
the  ceremony  of  limping,  and  the  names  Penuel  and 
Israel.  And  so  on.  Etymological  elements,  it  may 
be  noted,  never  appear  alone  in  Genesis,  but  always 
in  connexion  with  other  features. 

ORIGIN    OF    THE    LEGENDS. 

In  many  cases  the  origin  of  the  legends  will  have 
been  revealed  with  what  has  already  been  considered. 
Thus,  in  most  etymological  legends  it  can  be  shown 
quite  clearly  that  those  features  in  the  legend  which 
explain  the  name  were  invented  for  this  very  pur- 
pose. The  incident  of  Abraham's  giving  Abimelech 
seven  (sheba)  lambs  at  Beersheba  (xxi.,  28  ff.)  was 
surely  invented  to  explain  this  name;  also  the  laugh- 
ing (sahak)  of  Isaac's  mother  (xviii.  12-15),  etc- 
The  narrative  of  Judah,  Er,  Onan  (xxxviii.)  and  the 
others  is  plainly  nothing  but  a  history  of  the  Israel- 
ite families,  just  as  the  legend  of  Dinah  (xxxiv.)  is 
merely  a  reflexion  of  the  attack  upon  Shechem. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  investigator  is  to  be 
warned   not  to  be   too  quick  to   jump  at  the  con- 


36        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

elusion  that  he  always  has  the  origin  of  the  legend 
in  this  oldest  interpretation  attainable  by  us.  On 
the  contrary,  we  have  to  reckon  with  the  possibility 
that  the  features  of  the  story  which  are  intelligible 
to  us  were  injected  into  it  later,  and  that  the  legend 
itself  is  older  than  any  meaning  we  can  see  in  it. 

Finally,  there  are  legends  which  cannot  be  classi- 
fied under  any  of  the  heads  given  above.  Of  such 
are  large  portions  of  the  legend  of  Joseph;  also  the 
chief  feature  of  the  story  of  Jacob  and  Laban;  the 
deceits  and  tricks  cannot  be  understood  from  the 
standpoint  of  either  history  or  aetiology. 

The  preceding  classification  of  legends  is  based  of 
course  upon  the  chief  or  dominant  features.  Along 
with  these  go  the  purely  ornamental  or  aesthetic 
features,  twining  about  the  others  like  vines  over 
their  trellises.  The  art  of  these  legends  is  revealed 
especially  in  this  portrayal  of  the  subject  matter 
given. 


III. 

THE    LITERARY   FORM   OF   THE 
LEGENDS. 

THE  beauty  of  the  legends  of  Genesis  has 
always  been  a  source  of  delight  to  readers  of 
refined  taste  and  it  is  not  mere  chance  that  painters 
have  been  so  fond  of  choosing  the  subjects  of  their 
works  from  Genesis.  Scholars  have  more  rarely 
expressed  appreciation  of  the  beauty  of  these  nar- 
ratives, often  perhaps  for  personal  reasons,  and  per- 
haps often  because  the  aesthetic  point  of  view 
seemed  to  them  incompatible  with  the  dignity  of 
science.  However,  we  do  not  share  this  prejudice, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  are  of  the  opinion  that  one  who 
ignores  the  artistic  form  of  these  legends  not  only 
deprives  himself  of  a  great  pleasure,  but  is  unable 
properly  to  satisfy  the  scientific  demands  of  the 
understanding  of  Genesis.  Nay,  more:  it  is  no 
insignificant  question  for  science  to  answer,  in  what 
the  peculiar  beauty  of  the  legends  consists, — a  prob- 
lem whose  solution  requires  a  thorough  investiga- 
tion of  the  contents  and  the  religion  of  Genesis. 

GENESIS    IS    PROSE. 

The  first  question  is,  whether  the  form  of  the  dic- 
tion is  prose  or  poetry.  Aside  from  Genesis  xlix. 
which   is  a  poem  and  not  a  narrative,  and  on  that 

37 


38        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

ground  alone  is  out  of  place  in  Genesis,  all  that  the 
book  contains  is  prose  in  form.  Detailed  investi- 
gations of  the  nature  of  this  prose  have  not  been 
carried  on.  Meanwhile,  at  least  this  may  be  said, 
that  this  prose  is  not  the  common  colloquial  lan- 
guage of  every-day  life,  but  is  more  artistic  in  its 
composition  and  has  some  sort  of  rhythmical  con- 
struction. Hebrew  prosody  is  still  a  sealed  book 
to  us,  but  in  reading  Genesis  aloud  one  feels  an 
agreeable  harmony  of  rhythmically  balanced  mem- 
bers. The  translator  of  Genesis  is  constrained  to 
imitate  this  balancing  of  sentences. 

Since  the  legends  were  already  very  old  when 
they  were  written  down,  as  will  be  shown  here- 
after, it  is  a  matter  of  course  that  the  language  of 
Genesis  is  somewhat  archaic;  this  too  must  be 
reproduced  in  the  translation.  In  certain  passages, 
the  climaxes  of  the  stories,  the  language  rises  into 
poetry,  as  is  the  case  with  the  German  Marchen 
where  the  spells  and  charms  are  in  poetic  form.  In 
the  case  of  some  of  the  legends  we  know  variants 
both  Biblical  and  extra-Biblical,  notably  of  the 
stories  of  creation,  of  the  Garden  of  Eden  and  of 
the  Flood,  which  are  in  strictly  metrical  form. 
Inasmuch  as  these  poetical  variants  are  known  to  be 
older  than  the  prose  versions  transmitted  in 
Genesis,  we  are  warranted  in  the  conjecture  that 
the  poetic  form  of  these  legends  is  older  than  any 
prose  form  whatever.  The  older  and  strictly 
rhythmical  form,  which  we  must  suppose  to  have 
been  sung,  would  differ  from  the  later  prose  form, 
which  was  recited,  as  does  the  ancient  German  epic 
from  the  later  Volksbuch  (book  of  popular  legends), 
or  as  do  the  Arthurian  poems  of  Christian  of  Troyes 


LITERARY  FORM  OF  THE  LEGENDS.        39 

from  the  prose  versions  of  Mallory's  Morte  (V Arthur 
or  the  Welsh  Mabinogion. 

GENESIS    A    FOLK-BOOK. 

A  second  question  is,  whether  these  poetic  ver- 
sions are  popular  traditions  or  the  productions  of 
individual  poets.  Modern  investigators  have 
answered  the  general  principle  of  the  question  to 
the  effect  that  Genesis  is  popular  oral  tradition 
written  down.  We  are  able  to  explain  clearly  how 
such  popular  traditions  originate.  Of  course,  in 
the  ultimate  beginning  it  was  always  an  individual 
who  improvised  or  devised  this  or  that  poem.  But 
it  is  characteristic  of  such  popular  traditions  that 
we  are  never  able  to  observe  them  in  the  germ,  any 
more  than  we  can  in  the  case  of  language,  but  that 
they  appear,  wherever  we  hear  of  them,  as  prim- 
itive possessions  inherited  from  the  patriarchs. 
Between  the  poet  who  first  conceived  them  and  the 
time  when  they  were  fixed  for  transmission  to  pos- 
terity a  long  period  elapsed,  and  in  this  period  the 
legends  were  repeated  from  generation  to  genera- 
tion and  passed  through  many  hands.  Yet  however 
faithfully  such  legends  are  transmitted,  they  are 
inevitably  altered  in  the  course  of  the  centuries. 
And  thus  they  finally  become  the  common  product 
of  the  people.  This  transformation  of  the  legends 
was  unconscious,  at  least  in  its  earlier  stages.  Only 
in  the  more  recent  modifications  is  it  reasonable  to 
assume  the  operation  of  conscious  art. 

Both  narrators  and  auditors  regarded  the  legends 
as  "true"  stories.  That  this  is  true  of  the  legends 
of  the  Old  Testament  is  shown  in  the  historical 
books  of  the  Bible,  where  the  narrators  proceed  by 


40        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

almost  imperceptible  degrees  from  legends  to  genu- 
ine historical  narratives.  It  follows  also  from  the 
legends  themselves,  which  go  about  in  all  serious- 
ness to  account  for  actual  conditions:  because  the 
woman  was  made  from  man's  rib,  therefore  he  longs 
for  union  with  her;  here  we  see  that  this  story  was 
no  mere  poetical  figure  to  the  one  who  told  it,  but 
an  event  that  had  actually  happened.  And  further- 
more, it  is  to  be  expected  from  the  nature  of  the 
case;  legends  come  from  ages  and  stages  of  civilisa- 
tion which  have  not  yet  acquired  the  intellectual 
power  to  distinguish  between  poetry  and  reality. 
It  is  therefore  no  slight  error  when  modern  investi- 
gators declare  the  legend  of  Paradise  to  be  an 
allegory  which  was  never  intended  to  represent 
actual  occurrences. 

Moreover,  for  the  very  reason  that  the  legend  is 
the  product  of  the  whole  people,  it  is  the  expres- 
sion of  the  people's  mind.  And  this  is  a  point  of 
greatest  importance  for  our  interpretation  of  the 
legends  of  Genesis.  We  are  warranted  in  regard- 
ing the  judgments  and  sentiments  presented  in  Gen- 
esis as  the  common  possession  of  large  numbers  of 
people. 

THE    CONTENTS    OF    GENESIS    IN    PRIMITIVE    FORM. 

Accordingly,  we  should  attempt  in  considering 
Genesis  to  realise  first  of  all  the  form  of  its  contents 
when  they  existed  as  oral  tradition.  This  point  of 
view  has  been  ignored  altogether  too  much  hitherto, 
and  investigators  have  instead  treated  the  legendary 
books  too  much  as  "books."  If  we  desire  to  under- 
stand the  legends  better  we  must  recall  to  view  the 
situations  in  which  the  legends  were  recited.     We 


LITERARY  FORM  OF  THE  LEGENDS.         41 

hear  of  such  situations  Ex.  xii.  26  f.,  xiii.  14  f., 
Joshua  iv.  6:  when  the  children  ask  about  the  reason 
of  the  sacred  ceremony  then  the  father  answers 
them  by  telling  the  story.  Similarly  we  can  imagine 
how  the  story  of  Sodom  was  told  with  the  Dead  Sea 
in  view,  and  the  legend  of  Bethel  on  the  summit  of 
Bethel.  But  the  common  situation  which  we  have 
to  suppose  is  this:  In  the  leisure  of  a  winter  even- 
ing the  family  sits  about  the  hearth;  the  grown 
people,  but  more  especially  the  children,  listen 
intently  to  the  beautiful  old  stories  of  the  dawn  of 
the  world,  which  they  have  heard  so  often  yet  never 
tire  of  hearing  repeated. 

Many  of  the  legends,  as  will  be  shown  later,  have 
such  a  marked  artistic  style  that  they  can  scarcely 
be  regarded  in  this  form  as  products  of  the  collec- 
tive people.  On  the  contrary,  we  must  assume  that 
there  was  in  Israel,  as  well  as  among  the  Arabs,  a 
class  of  professional  story-tellers.  These  popular" 
story-tellers,  familiar  with  old  songs  and  legends, 
wandered  about  the  country,  and  were  probably  to 
be  found  regularly  at  the  popular  festivals. 

We  have  already  seen  (page  38)  that  the  trans- 
mitted prose  narrative  was  perhaps  preceded  by  a 
narrative  in  regular  rhythmical  form  and  intended 
for  singing.  In  the  case  of  these  songs  the  circum- 
stances of  their  presentation  may  have  been  differ- 
ent. From  the  precedent  of  the  Babylonian  poem 
of  the  creation,  which  in  its  form  is  an  Easter  hymn 
in  praise  of  Marduk,  we  may  infer  that  the  legends 
regarding  forms  of  worship  go  back  to  hymns  for 
the  sanctuary  which  were  perhaps  sung  by  the  priest 
at  the  sacred  festivals  and  on  the  sacred  ground  (p. 
33).     But  however  this  may  be,  the  legends  regard- 


42  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

ing  sanctuaries  as  we  have  them  now  had  certainly 
ceased  to  be  sung,  and,  as  their  peculiarly  colorless 
attitude  shows,  were  not  connected  with  the  sacred 
place  in  this  form,  but  belong  already  to  popular 
tradition. 

THE    REAL    UNIT    IN    GENESIS. 

A  new  and  fundamental  question  is:  What  unit  is 
really  the  constituent  unit  in  Genesis,  the  one  which 
we  should  first  apply  ourselves  to?  For  there  are  a 
number  of  different  units  in  Genesis.  The  most 
comprehensive  unit  is  the  whole  Pentateuch,  then 
Genesis,  and  then  the  single  collections  of  legends 
that  preceded  it;  then  the  individual  legends  of  which 
the  book  was  composed.  Among  these  a  distinc- 
tion has  to  be  made  between  the  independent  indi- 
vidual legends,  such,  for  example,  as  those  of  the 
flight  of  Hagar  and  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  and  on  the 
other  hand  certain  groups  of  several  legends  con- 
stituting legend-cycles,  such  as  the  cycle  which 
treats  the  destinies  of  Abraham  and  Lot  down  to 
the  birth  of  their  sons,  or  the  one  comprising 
Jacob's  experiences  with  Esau  and  with  Laban,  or 
the  one  of  which  Joseph  is  the  hero.  All  of  these 
various  units  must  be  considered.  But  the  first 
question  is,  Which  of  these  units  is  most  important 
for  our  purposes,  that  is,  which  of  them  was  the 
original  unit  in  oral  tradition? 

This  is  a  question  that  arises  in  many  similar 
cases:  W7hich  is  the  elemental  unit:  the  song-book, 
the  individual  group  of  songs  in  it,  or  the  individual 
song?  Is  it  the  gospel,  the  address,  or  the  indi- 
vidual   utterance   that   is   reported  of  Jesus?      The 


LITER A  R  V  FORMS  OF  THE  LEGENDS.        43 

whole  apocalypse,  the  separate  apocalyptic  docu- 
mentary sources,  or  the  individual  vision?  For  the 
proper  understanding  of  Genesis,  also,  it  is  of  critical 
importance  that  this  question  be  clearly  met  and 
correctly  answered.  Hitherto  investigators  have 
seemed  to  regard  it  as  a  matter  of  course  that  the 
original  sources  were  the  constituent  units,  though 
the  true  view  has  not  been  without  witnesses.1 

Popular  legends  in  their  very  nature  exist  in  the 
form  of  individual  legends;  not  until  later  do  com- 
pilers put  several  such  legends  together,  or  poets 
construct  of  them  greater  and  artistic  compositions. 
Thus  it  is  also  with  the  Hebrew  popular  legends. 
The  legends  of  Genesis  even  in  their  present  form 
give  clear  evidence  of  this.  Every  single  legend 
that  is  preserved  in  an  early  form  is  a  complete 
whole  by  itself;  it  begins  with  a  distinct  introduc- 
tion and  ends  with  a  very  recognisable  close.  Com- 
pare certain  specific  cases:  Abraham  wishes  to  sue 
for  a  wife  for  his  son;  being  too  old  himself  he 
sends  out  his  oldest  servant — thus  the  story  opens. 
Then  we  are  told  how  the  old  servant  finds  the  right 
maiden  and  brings  her  home.  Meantime  the  aged 
master  has  died.  The  young  master  receives  the 
bride,  and  "he  was  comforted  for  the  death  of  his 
father."    Everyone  can  see  that  the  story  ends  here. 

Abraham  is  directed  by  God  to  sacrifice  his  son; 
this  is  the  exposition  (from  xxii.  on),  which  makes 
an  entirely  new  start.     Then  we  are  told  how  Abra- 

'Reuss,  AT  III.,  p.  73:  "Originally  the  legends  of  the 
patriarchs  arose  individually  without  connexion  and  independ- 
ently of  one  another." — Wellhausen,  Composition  2,  p.  9: 
"Tradition  in  the  popular  mouth  knows  only  individual 
legends." 


) 


44        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

ham  was  resolved  upon  the  deed  and  very  nearly 
accomplished  it,  but  at  the  last  moment  the  sacrifice 
was  prevented  by  God  himself:  Isaac  is  preserved  to 
Abraham.  'Then  they  returned  together  to  Beer- 
sheba."  We  see  that  the  narrative  always  opens  in 
such  a  way  that  one  recognises  that  something  new 
is  about  to  begin;  and  it  closes  at  the  point  where 
the  complication  that  has  arisen  is  happily  resolved: 
no  one  can  ask,  What  followed? 

Similarly,  the  unity  of  the  separate  legends  is 
shown  in  the  fact  that  they  are  in  each  case  filled 
with  a  single  harmonious  sentiment.  Thus,  in  the 
story  of  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  emotion  is  predomi- 
nant; in  that  of  Jacob's  deception  of  Isaac,  humor; 
in  the  story  of  Sodom,  moral  earnestness;  in  the 
story  of  Babel,  the  fear  of  Almighty   God. 

Many  stories  are  entirely  spoiled  by  following 
them  up  immediately  with  new  ones  which  drive  the 
reader  suddenly  from  one  mood  to  another.  Every 
skilful  story-teller,  on  the  contrary,  makes  a  pause 
after  telling  one  such  story,  giving  the  imagination 
time  to  recover,  allowing  the  hearer  to  reflect  in 
quiet  on  what  he  has  heard  while  the  chords  that 
have  been  struck  are  permitted  to  die  away.  Any 
one,  for  instance,  who  has  followed  the  story  of 
Isaac  sympathetically,  feels  at  the  close  the  need  of 
repose  in  which  to  recover  from  the  emotion 
aroused.  Those  stories  especially  which  aim  to 
give  a  reason  for  some  present  condition  (Cp.  pp.  17, 
and  25-36)  require  a  pause  at  the  close  so  that 
the  hearer  may  compare  the  prophecy  and  its  pres- 
ent fulfilment;  as  evidence  of  this  consider  the  close 
of  the  story  of  Eden,  of  the  Flood,  or  of  the  drunk- 
enness of  Noah. 


LITERARY  FORMS  OF  THE  LEGENDS.        45 
LEGEND    CYCLES. 

In  later  times  there  were  formed  of  these  indi- 
vidual legends  greater  units,  called  legend  cycles, 
in  which  the  separate  legends  are  more  or  less 
artistically  combined.  But  even  here  it  is  not  at 
all  difficult  in  most  cases  to  extricate  the  original 
constituent  elements  from  one  another.  Thus  the 
legend  cycle  which  treats  Abraham  and  Lot  sep- 
arates clearly  into  the  following  stories:  (i)  The 
migration  of  Abraham  and  Lot  to  Canaan;  (2)  their 
separation  at  Bethel;  (3)  the  theophany  at  Hebron; 
(4)  the  destruction  of  Sodom;  (5)  the  birth  of 
Amnion  and  Moab;  (6)  the  birth  of  Isaac.  The 
legend  cycle  of  Jacob-Esau-Laban  divised  clearly 
into  the  legends  of  Jacob  and  Esau,  of  Jacob  and 
Laban,  the  legends  of  the  origin  of  the  twelve 
tribes,  with  various  legends  interspersed  of  the 
origin  of  ritual  observances.  In  the  stories  con- 
nected with  Joseph,  also,  those  of  Joseph's  inter- 
course with  his  brothers  are  clearly  distinguished 
from  those  of  Potiphar's  wife,  of  Pharaoh's  dreams, 
and  those  of  the  agricultural  conditions  of  Egypt 
(Gen.  xlvii.  13-26). 

This  leads  to  the  practical  conclusion  for  the  exe- 
gete  that  each  individual  legend  must  be  interpreted 
first  of  all  from  within.  The  more  independent  a 
story  is,  the  more  sure  we  may  be  that  it  is  preserved 
in  its  original  form.  And  the  connexion  between 
individual  legends  is  of  later  origin  in  many  cases, 
if  it  be  not  simply  an  hallucination  of  the  exegete. 

As  an  example  of  a  primitive  legend  which  is 
almost  wholly  without  antecedent  assumptions,  take 
the  story  of   Hagar's  flight,  Gen.  xvi.,  for  which  we 


46        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

need  to  know  only  that  there  is  a  man  named  Abra- 
ham with  a  wife  named  Sarah;  everything  else  is 
told  by  the  legend  itself.  An  example  of  a  later 
narrative  is  that  of  the  suit  for  the  hand  of  Rebeccah 
(chap,  xxiv.):  this  legend  is  based  upon  a  whole 
series  of  individual  elements  which  belong  to  other 
legends,  as  the  kinship  and  migration  of  Abraham, 
the  promise  of  Jahveh  at  the  migration,  the  facts 
that  Isaac  was  his  only  son  and  the  son  of  his  old  age, 
and  so  forth.  Hence  it  is  the  individual  legend 
with  which  we  shall  have  to  deal  first  in  this  treatise. 

LENGTH     OF     LEGENDS. 

What  are  the  limits  of  such  a  story?  Many  of 
the  stories  of  Genesis  extend  over  scarcely  more 
than  ten  verses.  This  is  the  case  with  the  stories 
of  Noah's  drunkenness,  of  the  tower  of  Babel,  of 
Abraham's  journey  to  Egypt,  of  Hagar's  flight  or 
the  exile  of  Ishmael,  of  the  trial  of  Abraham,  of 
Jacob  at  Bethel  and  at  Penuel.  After  these  very 
brief  stories  we  can  group  a  series  of  more  detailed 
stories  occupying  about  a  chapter,  such  as  the  story 
of  Paradise,  of  Cain's  parricide,  of  the  Flood,  of 
the  theophany  at  Hebron,  of  the  betrothal  of  Rebec- 
cah, of  the  fraud  perpetrated  upon  Isaac  by  Jacob. 
Finally  the  legend  cycles  exceed  this  limit  of  space. 

This  matter  of  the  compass  of  the  legends  consti- 
tutes a  decided  distinction  between  them  and  our 
modern  productions.  Even  the  most  complex 
legend  groups  of  Genesis,  such  as  that  of  Joseph, 
are  of  very  modest  extent  by  modern  standards, 
while  the  older  legends  are  absolutely  abrupt  to 
modern  taste.  Now,  of  course,  the  brief  compass 
of  the  old  legends  is  at  the  same  time  an   index  of 


LITERARY  FORM  OF  THE  LEGENDS.         47 

their  character.  They  deal  with  very  simple  occur- 
rences which  can  be  adequately  described  in  a  few 
words.  And  this  compass  accords  also  with  the 
artistic  ability  of  the  narrator  and  the  comprehen- 
sion of  the  hearer.  The  earliest  story-tellers  were 
not  capable  of  constructing  artistic  works  of  any 
considerable  extent;  neither  could  they  expect  their 
hearers  to  follow  them  with  undiminished  interest 
for  days  and  even  weeks  continuously.  On  the  con- 
trary, primitive  times  were  satisfied  with  quite  brief 
productions  which  required  not  much  over  half  an 
hour.  Then  when  the  narrative  is  finished  the 
imagination  of  the  hearer  is  satisfied  and  his  atten- 
tion exhausted. 

On  the  other  hand,  our  narratives  show  us  that 
later  times  were  no  longer  satisfied  with  the  very 
brief  stories  of  primitive  construction;  a  more  fully 
developed  aesthetic  faculty  demands  more  scope  for 
its  expression.  Thus  greater  compositions  arose. 
This  growth  in  the  compass  of  legends  was  favored 
by  the  circumstance  of  their  being  written  down; 
written  productions  are  naturally  more  discursive 
than  oral  ones,  because  the  eye  in  reading  can  more 
easily  grasp  larger  conceptions  than  the  ear  in  hear- 
ing. Accordingly,  this  too  is  a  measure  of  the 
relative  age  of  legends,  though  a  measure  which 
must  be  used  with  caution:  the  briefer  a  legend,  the 
greater  the  probability  that  we  have  it  in  its  orig- 
inal form. 

SIMPLICITY    AND    CLEARNESS    OF     PRIMITIVE 
LITERARY    ART. 

The  brevity  of  the  legends  is,  as  we  have  seen,  a 
mark  of  the  poverty  of  primitive  literary  art;  but  at 


48        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

the  same  time  this  poverty  has  its  peculiar  advan- 
tages. The  narrow  limits  within  which  the  narrator 
moves  compel  him  to  concentrate  his  entire  poetic 
power  into  the  smallest  compass;  so  that,  while 
these  creations  are  small,  they  are  also  condensed 
and  effective.  And  the  moderate  grasp  which 
these  small  works  of  art  have  to  reckon  upon  in 
their  hearers  results  also  in  making  the  narratives 
as  clear  and  synoptic  as  possible. 

To  make  this  last  fact  more  evident,  consider  in 
the  first  place  the  balance  of  parts.  Not  only  the 
longer  of  these  narratives,  but  especially  the  brief- 
est also  are  outlined  with  extraordinary  sharpness. 
Thus,  the  story  of  Noah's  drunkenness  is  con- 
structed as  follows:  Exposition,  Noah's  drunken- 
ness. I.  The  occurrences:  (i)  Canaan's  shameless- 
ness;  (2)  the  filial  respect  of  Shem  and  Japhet;  II. 
The  judgments:  (1)  concerning  Canaan;  (2)  con- 
cerning Shem  and  Japhet.— Or  take  the  story  of  the 
Garden  of  Eden,  chap,  iii.:  I.  The  sin:  (1)  the 
serpent  tempts  Eve;  (2)  the  woman  and  the  man 
sin;  (3)  as  consequence,  the  loss  of  their  innocence; 
II.  The  examination;  III.  The  punishments:  (1) 
the  curse  upon  the  serpent,  (2)  upon  the  woman, 
(3)  upon  the  man;  IV.  Conclusion:  the  expulsion 
from  the  garden. 

By  means  of  such  plain  and  beautiful  analyses  the 
narratives  gain  in  clearness,  that  is,  in  the  prerequi- 
site of  all  aesthetic  charm:  the  whole  is  analysed 
into  divisions  and  subdivisions  which  are  themselves 
easily  grasped  and  the  relation  of  which  to  one 
another  is  perfectly  plain.  And  these  outlines  are 
never  painfully  forced,  but  seem  to  have  come  quite 
as  a  matter  of  course  from  the  nature  of  the  subject. 


LITERARY  FORM  OF  THE  LEGENDS.        49 

Consider,  for  instance,  in  the  story  of  Eden,  how 
perfectly  the  outline  corresponds  to  the  contents: 
in  the  fall  the  order  is:  Serpent,  woman,  man;  the 
examination  begins  with  the  last  result  and  reverses 
the  process,  the  order  here  being:  Man,  woman, 
serpent;  the  punishment  falls  first  upon  the  chief 
sinner,  and  accordingly  the  original  order  is  here 
resumed:  Serpent,  woman,  man.  Hence  the  mod- 
ern reader  is  advised  to  heed  the  systematic  arrange- 
ment of  parts,  since  the  analysis  will  at  the  same 
time  give  him  the  course  of  the  action. 

Furthermore,  the  narrator  of  the  legend,  unlike 
the  modern  novelist,  could  not  expect  his  hearers  to 
be  interested  in  many  persons  at  once,  but  on  the 
contrary,  he  always  introduces  to  us  a  very  small 
number.  Of  course  the  minimum  is  two,  because  it 
takes  at  least  two  to  make  a  complication  of  inter- 
ests: such  are  the  cases  of  the  separation  of  Abra- 
ham and  Lot,  of  Esau's  sale  of  his  birthright,  and 
of  the  story  of  Penuel;  there  are  three  personages 
in  the  story  of  the  creation  of  the  woman  (God,  the 
man  and  the  woman),  in  the  story  of  Cain's  fratri- 
cide (God,  Cain  and  Abel),  in  the  story  of  Lot  in 
the  cave,  and  of  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac;  there  are  four 
in  the  story  of  Eden,  of  Abraham's  journey  into 
Egypt,  of  Hagar's  flight,  of  the  deception  practised 
upon  Isaac  by  Jacob. 

There  are  indeed  narratives  in  which  more  person- 
ages take  part,  as  in  the  case  of  the  detailed  story 
of  the  suit  for  the  hand  of  Rebeccah,  and  especially 
in  the  stories  of  the  twelve  sons  of  Jacob.  Yet  even 
here  the  narrators  have  not  been  neglectful  of  clear- 
ness and  distinctness.  In  very  many  cases  where  a 
number  of  persons  appear,  the  many  are  treated  as 


50        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

one:  they  think  and  wish  the  same  things  and  act 
all  alike:  thus  in  the  story  of  the  Flood  and  of  the 
tower  of  Babel  all  mankind  are  treated  as  one  per- 
son, so  also  with  the  brothers  Shem  and  Japhet, 
with  the  three  men  at  Hebron  and  at  Sodom 
(according  to  the  original  version  of  the  story), 
Lot's  son-in-law  at  Sodom,  the  courtiers  of  Pharaoh, 
the  citizens  of  Shechem  (Gen.  xxxiv.  24),  the 
brothers  of  Dinah  (xxxiv.  25),  the  citizens  of 
Temnah  (xxxviii.  24),  and  in  many  other  cases. 
This  is  in  accord  with  the  conditions  of  antiquity, 
in  which  the  individual  was  much  less  sharply  dis- 
tinguished from  the  mass  of  the  people  than  in 
modern  times.  At  the  same  time,  however,  this 
condensation  of  several  persons  into  one  is  due  to 
the  inability  of  the  narrator  to  catch  and  depict  the 
actual  distinctions  among  individuals. 

How  limited  in  those  days  the  capacity  of  even 
an  artistically  developed  narrator  to  depict  char- 
acter is  shown  in  the  conspicuous  instance  of  the 
story  of  Joseph:  the  narrative  presents  Joseph  and 
the  eleven  in  conflict;  among  the  others  the  story 
distinguishes  Joseph's  full  brother,  Benjamin,  the 
youngest;  of  the  remaining  ten  Reuben  (Judah)  is 
recognised  separately.  But  this  is  the  extent  of  the 
narrator's  power  to  characterise;  the  remaining  nine 
lack  all  individuality;  they  are  simply  "the 
brothers." 

Further  simplicity  is  attained  by  means  of  the 
arrangement  of  parts,  which,  as  we  have  noted, 
resolves  the  story  into  a  number  of  little  scenes. 
And  in  these  scenes  it  is  rare  that  all  the  persons  of 
the  story  appear  at  once,  but  only  a  few,  usually 
only  two,    are   shown    us    at    once.       Compare    the 


LITERARY  FORM  OF  THE  LEGENDS.         51 

scenes  of  the  story  of  the  suit  for  Rebeccah;  the 
first  scene  shows  Abraham  and  his  servant,  the 
second  shows  the  servant  alone  on  the  journey  and 
at  the  well,  the  third  the  servant  and  the  maiden, 
the  fourth  the  maiden  and  her  family,  the  fifth,  and 
principal,  scene  shows  the  servant  together  with 
the  maiden  in  her  home,  the  sixth  the  servant 
returning  home  with  the  maiden,  the  last  their 
arrival  at  the  tent  of  Isaac.  Or,  another  instance, 
the  story  of  the  exile  of  Ishmael  (xxiv.  4  ff.)  shows 
in  succession:  Sarah  hearing  the  laughter  of 
Ishmael,  and  persuading  Abraham;  Abraham 
expelling  Hagar;  then  Hagar  alone  in  the  wilder- 
ness with  the  child,  and  finally  her  rescue  by  the 
angel.  The  story  of  Jacob's  deception  (xxvii.) 
treats  first  of  Isaac  and  Esau,  then  of  Rebeccah  and 
Jacob,  next  of  Jacob  before  Isaac,  and  of  Esau 
before  Isaac,  of  Esau's  hatred  of  Jacob,  and  finally 
of  Rebeccah' s  advice  to  Jacob. 

The  narrative  takes  especial  pains  to  motivate  this 
succession  of  scenes;  and  yet  it  does  not  hesitate  to 
simply  drop  a  personage  on  occasion,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  serpent  after  the  temptation,  or  of  Rebeccah 
after  the  death  of  Isaac.  By  means  of  this  analysis 
the  narrative  gains  great  clearness;  the  hearer  is  not 
constrained  to  keep  a  confusing  group  of  people  in 
view,  but  he  sees  them  in  succession;  thus  he  has 
time  to  inspect  them  at  leisure  and  to  familiarise 
himself  with  them.  Only  once,  at  the  climax  of 
the  action,  do  all  the  persons  appear  together:  thus 
in  the  story  of  Eden,  in  that  of  Noah's  drunkenness, 
and  in  the  story  of  Joseph  at  the  close.  But  even 
here  the  narrators  considered  grouping  necessary. 
They  would   not  have  been  able  to  conduct  a  con- 


52        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

versation  between  a  number  of  persons  at  once. 
Thus  at  the  end  of  the  story  of  Eden  God  does  not 
reprove  all  the  participants  in  one  common  address; 
but  he  turns  first  to  the  serpent,  then  to  the  woman, 
then  to  the  man.  And  elsewhere  also  it  is  the 
nature  of  the  style  to  divide  up  the  conversation 
into  so  many  dialogues. 

CHIEF  AND    SUBORDINATE    PERSONAGES. 

The  survey  of  the  various  personages  is  further 
facilitated  by  a  very  distinct  separation  of  leading 
and  subordinate  parts.  The  hearer  does  not  have  to 
ask  many  questions  to  learn  which  of  the  person- 
ages should  receive  his  especial  attention;  the  nar- 
rator makes  this  very  plain  to  him  simply  by  speaking 
most  of  the  chief  personage.  Thus  in  most  of  the 
legends  of  the  patriarchs  the  patriarchs  themselves 
are  as  a  matter  of  course  the  chief  personages.  In 
the  following  cases  the  personages  of  their  respec- 
tive stories  are  arranged  in  the  order  in  which  they 
interest  the  narrator:  Cain,  Abel;  Abraham,  Sarah, 
Pharaoh  (Genesis  xii.  10-20);  Abraham,  Lot; 
Hagar,  Sarah,  Abraham  (chap,  xvi.);  the  servant 
and  Rebeccah  are  the  chief  personages  in  chap, 
xxiv.,  the  others  being  all  of  second  rank;  in  chap, 
xxvii.  the  chief  personages  are  Jacob  and  Esau, 
while  the  parents  are  secondary;  in  the  story  of 
Jacob  and  Laban  these  are  the  chief  personages,  the 
women  secondary.  In  this  classification  sympathy 
and  veneration  are  not  to  be  confused  with  interest; 
the  artistic  interest  of  the  narrator  is  greater  in 
Cain  than  in  Abel,  in  Hagar  than  in  Sarah;  in  chap, 
xxiv,  the  servant  is  the  chief  personage  while  Abra- 
ham has  only  a  subordinate  part. — In  many  cases   it 


LITERARY  FORM  OF  THE  LEGENDS.         53 

is  the  destinies  of  a  single  leading  personage  that 
we  pursue,  noticeably  in  the  case  of  the  stories  of 
Joseph. 

DESCRIPTION    OF    CHARACTERS. 

In  attempting  to  discover  the  method  by  which 
characters  are  depicted  we  are  first  struck  by  the 
brevity  with  which  subordinate  personages  are 
treated.  Modern  literary  creations  have  accus- 
tomed us  to  expect  that  every  personage  introduced 
be  characterised  if  possible  with  at  least  a  few 
touches  as  an  independent  individual.  The  method  of 
the  primitive  saga-man  is  entirely  different.  The 
personages  whom  he  considers  altogether  or  tem- 
porarily subordinate  receive  little  or  no  characteri- 
sation. In  view  of  the  primitive  feeling  on  the 
subject  it  is  a  matter  of  course  that  not  much  atten- 
tion was  paid  to  slaves.  The  attendants  of  Esau 
(xxxii.  ff.)  or  of  Laban  (xxxi.  23)  are  introduced 
merely  to  show  their  masters'  importance,  and  have 
no  further  significance.  The  narrators  did  not  even 
consider  it  necessary  to  mention  the  sin  of  the  two 
chamberlains  of  Pharaoh  (xli.  1),  or  the  feelings  of 
Dinah  (xxxiv.),  or  those  of  Sarah  on  the  journey 
to  Egypt  (xii.  10  ff.).  Hirah,  the  friend  of  Judah 
(xxxviii.  1,  12,  20),  is  not  characterised;  the  sin 
of  Er  (xxxvii.  7)  is  not  specified;  nothing  is  told  of 
Shuah,  the  wife  of  Judah  (xxxviii.  2-12),  that  is 
really  characteristic;  the  same  is  true  of  Joseph's 
steward  (xliii.  16),  of  Potiphar,  and  others. 

And  even  the  characterisation  of  the  chief  person- 
ages is  remarkably  brief  according  to  our  notions. 
Only  a  few  traits  are  ascribed  to  them,  often  but 
one.       Cain    is    jealous    of    his    brother,    Canaan    is 


64       THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

shameless,  Shem  and  Japhet  respectful.  In  the 
story  of  the  separation  of  Lot  and  Abraham,  the 
former  is  greedy,  the  latter  conciliatory.  In  the 
story  of  Hebron,  Abraham  is  hospitable,  and  in  the 
migration  he  is  obedient  to  the  will  of  God.  In 
the  story  of  Penuel,  Jacob  is  strong  and  brave,  in 
the  affair  with  Esau  he  is  crafty,  in  the  story  of 
Joseph  he  is  fond  of  the  children  of  Rachel.  In 
the  somewhat  complex  story  of  the  Fall  the  serpent 
is  crafty  and  evil,  the  man  and  the  woman  are 
guileless  as  children,  the  woman  is  fond  of  dainties 
and  gullible  ,  the  man  follows  his  wife.  Even  in 
the  case  of  God  each  individual  story  as  a  rule 
speaks  of  but  one  single  quality:  in  most  of  the 
legends  he  is  the  gracious  helper,  in  others,  as  the 
stories  of  Paradise  and  Babel,  he  is  the  lofty  sover- 
eign whose  concern  is  to  keep  men  within  bounds. 
We  are  struck  by  this  paucity  in  the  legends,  since 
we  are  familiar  in  modern  compositions  with  por- 
traits made  up  of  many  separate  traits  and  painted 
with  artistic  detail.  The  art  of  the  primitive  story- 
tellers is  very  different.  True,  it  is  based  upon  the 
actual  conditions  of  primitive  ages  in  one  respect: 
the  men  of  antiquity  were  in  general  more  simple 
than  the  many-sided  men  of  modern  times.  Yet  it 
would  be  an  error  to  suppose  that  men  in  those 
earlier  days  were  as  simple  as  they  are  represented 
to  be  in  the  legends;  compare  in  evidence  of  this 
the  character  sketches  of  a  somewhat  maturer  art  in 
the  Second  Book  of  Samuel..  With  this  example  in 
mind  we  shall  recognise  also  that  there  is  some 
other  ground  for  the  brevity  of  the  legends  of 
Genesis  than  that  abbreviation  of  the  real  which  is 
inevitable  in  every  artistic  reproduction  of  life. 


LITERARY  FORM  OF  THE  LEGEND*.         55 

POPULAR    LEGENDS    TREAT    MEN    AS    TYPES. 

It  is,  on  the  contrary,  a  peculiar  popular  concep- 
tion of  man  that  we  meet  in  Genesis.  This  concep- 
tion was  unable  to  grasp  and  represent  many  sides 
of  man,  much  less  all;  it  could  see  but  a  little.  But 
so  much  the  more  need  had  it  to  catch  the  essential 
traits  of  the  individual,  wherefore  it  constructed 
types.  Thus  in  the  story  of  the  flight  of  Hagar, 
Hagar  is  the  type  of  the  slave  (xvi.)  who  is  too  well 
treated,  Sarah  of  the  jealous  wife,  Abraham  the  type 
of  the  conciliatory  husband.  Rachel  and  Leah  are 
types  of  the  favorite  and  of  the  unloved  wife;  in  the 
story  of  the  migration  of  Abraham  to  Egypt,  or  the 
story  of  Joseph,  Pharoah  acts  like  the  typical  Orien- 
tal king  in  such  cases;  his  courtiers  are  courtiers  and 
nothing  more;  Abraham's  servant,  chap,  xxiv.,  is  an 
old  and  tried  servant;  Isaac,  in  the  story  of  the  decep- 
tion, is  a  blind  old  man,  and  Rebeccah  a  cunning, 
partial  mother;  Abraham  in  his  migration  and  in 
chap.  xxii.  is  the  type  of  the  pious  and  obedient  man. 
A  number  of  figures  are  the  types  of  the  races  which 
are  said  to  be  descended  from  them:  the  shameless 
Canaan,  the  generous  but  stupid  Esau,  the  crafty 
Laban,  the  still  more  crafty  Jacob  (cp.  p.  23). 

Doubtless  it  is  another  sign  of  the  lack  of  creative 
grasp  when  the  legends  thus  present  to  our  eyes 
species  instead  of  individuals;  but  the  narrators 
have  made  a  virtue  of  necessity.  Within  the  lim- 
ited sphere  assigned  to  them  they  give  us  extraor- 
dinary achievements.  The  types  which  they  had 
the  opportunity  to  observe  they  have  depicted  with 
a  confidence  and  a  clearness  similar  to  those  dis- 
played in  the  national  types  preserved   to  us  by  the 


56        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

Egyptian  painters.  And  for  this  very  reason  many 
of  the  old  legends  still  fascinate  the  modern  reader, 
and  even  the  unlearned  reader;  they  often  repro- 
duce universally  human  conditions  and  relations 
which  are  intelligible  without  interpretation  unto 
this  day.  To  the  special  student,  however,  they 
yield  much  greater  pleasure,  for  to  him  they  furnish 
the  most  intimate  revelations  regarding  primitive 
conditions  and  sentiments. 

As  a  natural  conclusion  from  this  simplicity  of 
the  characters  represented  we  recognise  that  the  art 
of  these  popular  legends  was  far  from  undertaking 
to  show  any  development  in  the  characters,  such  as 
improvement  or  degeneration.  Not  that  primitive 
times  ignored  the  possibilities  of  such  changes;  the 
denunciations  of  the  prophets  as  well  as  historical 
evidence  prove  the  contrary.  But  the  art  of  the 
story-teller  is  far  from  equal  to  the  task  of  depicting 
such  an  inward  change.  All  that  modern  exegetes 
claim  to  have  found  in  Genesis  in  this  line  is  simply 
imported  into  the  sources:  Jacob's  dishonest  char- 
acter did  not  change  at  all;  and  Joseph's  brethren 
are  not  at  all  reformed  in  the  course  of  the  story, 
but  simply  punished. 

While,  therefore,  the  individual  legends  recognise 
in  the  main  only  one  quality  of  the  personages 
involved,  the  legend  cycles  are  able  to  give  more 
detailed  descriptions,  although  after  a  peculiar  man- 
ner. The  characteristic  instance  is,  of  course,  the 
portrayal  of  the  figure  of  Joseph  in  the  cycle  of 
legends  devoted  to  his  history.  Here  each  indi- 
vidual legend  brings  out  one  or  two  sides  of  his 
nature:  one  legend  (xxxvii.)  tells  us  that  he  was 
loved    bv    his    father    and    therefore    hated    by   his 


LITERARY  FORM  OF  THE  LEGENDS.         57 

brethren,  and  that  he  had  dreams;  another  (xxxix.) 
tells  us  that  everything  throve  under  his  hand,  and 
that  he  was  fair  and  chaste;  a  third  (xl.)  that  he 
could  interpret  dreams;  and  a  fourth  (xli.)  that  he 
was  crafty;  and  so  on.  Combining  all  these  indi- 
vidual traits  we  get  finally  a  complete  portrait. 

Furthermore,  the  narrators  are  exceedingly  grudg- 
ing in  the  outward  description  of  their  personages: 
they  reveal  nothing  regarding  hair,  complexion, 
eyes  or  garb.  In  all  this  they  seem  to  take  the 
normal  Hebrew  type  for  granted.  And  wherever 
they  deviate  from  this  rule  in  their  description  it  is 
done  for  specific  reasons:  Esua  is  red  and  hairy 
(xxv.  '25)  clearly  because  he  is  a  type  of  the 
Edomite;  Joseph  wears  his  long  garment  with 
sleeves  (xxxvii.  3)  as  a  badge  of  the  love  of  his 
father;  Leah  had  "tender  eyes"  and  Rachel  is  beau- 
tiful of  form  (xxix.  17)  to  explain  why  Jacob  rejects 
Leah  and  loves  Rachel. 

Now  if  we  ask  what  principle  the  story-teller  fol- 
lows when  he  does  emphasise  definite  characteristics 
of  his  personages,  we  discover  that  the  characterisa- 
tion is  generally  subordinated  to  the  action.  The 
particular  quality  of  the  person  is  emphasised  that 
is  necessary  for  the  development  of  the  action;  all 
others  are  ignored.  The  story  of  the  deception 
practised  by  Jacob  tells  how  the  latter,  following 
his  mother's  counsel,  induces  his  father  to  bless  him 
instead  of  Esau:  here  Jacob  is  crafty,  he  practises 
deception;  Esau  is  stupid,  he  lets  himself  be 
cheated;  Isaac  is  easily  deceived,  is  blind;  Rebec- 
cah  is  cunning,  she  gives  the  deceitful  advice  and 
is  partial  to  Jacob.  This  is  further  portrayed  in  a 
more  detailed  narrative:    Jacob  is  a  shepherd  who 


58        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

dwells  at  home  with  his  mother,  Esau  a  hunter 
whose  venison  the  father  is  fond  of.  The  modern 
story-teller  would  add  a  quantity  of  further  traits  to 
give  color  and  life  to  the  figures,  but  the  primitive 
story-teller  rejected  all  such  details.  It  is  very 
easy  to  see  what  the  aesthetic  interest  of  the  nar- 
rator was:  he  cared  above  all  things  for  the  action; 
the  portrayal  of  figures,  was  for  him  only  a  second- 
ary matter. 

METHODS    OF    THE    NARRATORS. 

What  means  do  the  narrators  use  for  the  rep- 
resentation of  the  character  of  their  heroes? 
The  modern  artist  is  very  apt  to  explain  in 
extended  descriptions  the  thoughts  and  feelings  of 
his  personages.  When  one  turns  from  such  a  mod- 
ern story-teller  to  the  study  of  Genesis,  one  is  aston- 
ished to  find  in  it  so  few  utterances  regarding  the 
inner  life  of  the  heroes.  Only  rarely  are  the 
thoughts  of  even  a  leading  personage  expressly 
told,  as  in  the  case  of  the  woman  when  she  was 
looking  desirously  at  the  tree  of  knowledge,  or  of 
Noah,  when  he  sent  forth  the  birds  "to  see  whether 
the  waters  were  dried  up  off  the  earth,"  or  the 
thoughts  of  Lot's  sons-in-law,  who  judged  that  their 
father-in-law  was  jesting;  the  thoughts  of  Isaac, 
who  feared  at  Gerar  that  he  might  be  robbed  of  his 
wife  (xxvi.  7);  or  the  cunning  thoughts  with  which 
Jacob  proposed  to  evade  the  revenge  of  his  brother 
Esau  (xxxii.  9),  and  so  on.  But  how  brief 
and  unsatisfactory  even  this  appears  compared 
with  the  psychological  descriptions  of  modern 
writers! 


LITERARY  FORM  OF  THE  LEGENDS.         59 

And  even  such  examples  as  these  are  not  the  rule 
in  the  legends  of  Genesis.  On  the  contrary,  the 
narrator  is  usually  content  with  a  very  brief  hint, 
such  as,  "He  grew  wroth"  (iv.  5;  xxx.  2;  xxxi.  36; 
xxxiv.  7;  xxxix.  19;  xl.  2),  or,  "He  was  afraid" 
(xxvi.  7;  xxviii.  17;  xxxii.  8),  "He  was  comforted" 
(xxiv.  16),  "He  loved  her"  (xxiv.  67;  xxix.  18; 
xxx.  3;  xxxvii.  3),  "She  became  jealous"  (xxx.  1), 
"He  was  filled  with  fear"  (xxvii.  33),  "He  eyed 
him  with  hatred"  (xxvii.  41;  xxxvii.  4),  and  else- 
where. But  even  these  brief  hints  are  far  from  fre- 
quent; on  the  contrary,  we  find  very  often  not  the 
slightest  expression  regarding  the  thoughts  and 
feelings  of  the  person  concerned,  and  this  in  situa- 
tions where  we  cannot  avoid  a  certain  surprise  at 
the  absence  of  such  expressions.  The  narrator  tells 
us  nothing  of  the  reasons  why  God  forbade  man  to 
partake  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of  knowledge,  nor  of 
the  reasons  of  the  serpent  for  wishing  to  seduce 
mankind.  He  says  nothing  of  the  feelings  with 
which  Abraham  left  his  home,  or  Noah  entered  the 
ark.  We  do  not  learn  that  Noah  was  angry  at 
Canaan's  shamelessness,  that  Jacob  was  disap- 
pointed when  Laban  cheated  him  with  Leah,  that 
Hagar  was  glad  when  she  received  the  promise  that 
Ishmael  should  become  a  great  nation;  we  are  not 
even  told  that  mothers  rejoice  when  they  hold  their 
firstborn  son  in  their  arms.  Particularly  striking  is 
the  case  of  the  story  of  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac:  what 
modern  writer  would  fail  under  such  circumstances 
to  portray  the  spiritual  state  of  Abraham  when  his 
religious  devotion  wins  the  hard  victory  over  his 
parental  love,  and  when  his  sadness  is  finally  turned 
into  rejoicing! 


60        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 


4 


THOUGHT    EXPRESSED    BY   ACTIONS. 


Now  what  is  the  reason  for  this  strange  proceed- 
ing? We  can  find  it  in  an  instance  like  that  of  xix. 
27  ff.  In  sight  of  the  city  of  Sodom  Abraham  had 
heard  certain  remarkable  utterances  from  the  three 
men;  they  had  said  that  they  were  going  down  to 
Sodom  to  examine  into  the  guilt  of  the  city.  This 
strange  remark  he  let  run  in  his  head;  in  the  morn- 
ing of  the  following  day  he  arose  and  went  to  the 
same  place  to  see  whether  anything  had  happened 
in  Sodom  during  the  night.  And  in  fact,  he  sees  in 
the  valley  below  a  smoke,  whence  he  must  infer 
that  something  has  taken  place;  but  this  smoke 
hides  the  region,  and  he  cannot  make  out  what  has 
happened.  For  the  story-teller  this  little  scene  is 
plainly  not  of  interest  because  of  the  thing  that 
happens,  but  because  of  the  thoughts  which  Abra- 
ham must  have  thought,  and  yet  he  does  not  tell  us 
what  these  thoughts  were.  He  merely  reports  to  us 
the  outward  incidents,  and  we  are  obliged  to  supply 
the  really  important  point  ourselves.  This  story- 
teller, then,  has  an  eye  for  the  soul-life  of  his  hero, 
but  he  cannot  conceive  these  inward  processes  with 
sufficient  clearness  to  express  them  in  definite 
words. 

This  is  a  typical  instance  for  Genesis.  In  very 
many  situations  where  the  modern  writer  would 
expect  a  psychological  analysis,  the  primitive  story- 
teller simply  presents  an  action.  The  spiritual 
state  of  the  man  and  woman  in  Paradise  and  after 
the  Fall  is  not  analysed,  but  a  single  objective 
touch  is  given  by  which  we  may  recognise  it.  The 
narrator  says  nothing  of  the  thoughts  of  Adam  when 


LITERAR  Y  FORM  OF  THE  LEGENDS.         61 

the  woman  handed  him  the  forbidden  fruit,  but 
merely,  that  he  ate  it;  he  does  not  discourse  to  us 
on  Abraham's  hospitable  disposition,  but  he  tells  us 
how  he  entertained  the  three  men.  He  does  not  say 
that  Shem  and  Japhet  felt  chastely  and  respectfully, 
but  he  has  them  act  chastely  and  respectfully;  not 
that  Joseph  had  compassion  npon,_hJs  brethren,  but 
thai,h^^rn£d_iiwayLandjwept  (xlii.  24;  xliii.  30);  not 
that  Hagarjjwhen  mistreateoVby^Sarah^ ieit  offended 
in  the  depths  of  her  maternal  pride,  but  that  she  ran 
away_^rom  her  mistress  (xvi.  6) ;  not  that  Laban  was 
dazzled  by  the  gold  of  the  stranger,  but  that  he  made 
haste  to  invite  him  (xxiv.  30);  not  that  obedience 
to  God  triumphed  in  Abraham  over  parental  love, 
but  that  he  arose  straightway  (xxii.  3);  not  that 
Tamar  remained  faithful  to  her  husband  even  be- 
yond the  grave,  but  that  she  took  measures  to  rear 
up  children  from  his  seed  (xxxviii). 

From  all  this  we  see  on  what  the  story-teller  laid 
the  chief  emphasis.  He  does  not  share  the  modern 
point  of  view  that  the  most  interesting  and  worthy 
theme  for  art  is  the  soul-life  of  man;  his  childlike 
taste  is  fondest  of  the  outward,  objective  facts. 
And  in  this  line  his  achievements  are  excellent. 
He  has  an  extraordinary  faculty  for  selecting  just 
the  action  which  is  most  characteristic  for  the  state 
of  feeling  of  his  hero.  How  could  filial  piety  be 
better  represented  than  in  the  story  of  Shem  and 
Japhet?  Or  mother-love  better  than  by  the  behavior 
of  Hagar?  She  gave  her  son  to  drink — we  are  not 
told  that  she  herself  drank.  How  could  hospitality 
be  better  depicted  than  in  the  actions  of  Abraham 
at  Hebron?  And  there  is  nothing  less  than  genius 
in  the  simple  manner  in  which  the  innocence  and 


62        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

the  consciousness  of  the  first  men  is  illustrated  by 
their  nakedness  and  their  clothing. 

These  simple  artists  had  not  learned  how  to 
reflect;  but  they  were  masters  of  observation.  It  is 
chiefly  this  admirable  art  of  indirectly  depicting 
men  through  their  actions  which  makes  the  legends 
so  vivid.  Little  as  these  primitive  men  could  talk 
about  their  soul-life,  we  gain  the  impression  that 
they  are  letting  us  look  into  the  very  hearts  of  their 
heroes.  These  figures  live  before  our  eyes,  and 
hence  the  modern  reader,  charmed  by  the  luminous 
clearness  of  these  old  legends,  is  quite  willing  to 
forget  their  defects. 

SOUL-LIFE    NOT    IGNORED. 

But  even  when  the  story-teller  said  nothing  of  the 
soul-life  of  his  heroes,  his  hearer  did  not  entirely 
fail  to  catch  an  impression  of  it.  We  must  recall 
at  this  point  that  we  are  dealing  with  orally  recited 
stories.  Between  narrator  and  hearer  there  is 
another  link  than  that  of  words;  the  tone  of  the 
voice  talks,  the  expression  of  the  face  or  the  ges- 
tures of  the  narrator.  Joy  and  grief,  love,  anger, 
jealousy,  hatred,  emotion,  and  all  the  other  moods 
of  his  heroes,  shared  by  the  narrator,  were  thus 
imparted  to  his  hearers  without  the  utterance  of  a 
word. 

Modern  exegesis  is  called  to  the  task  of  reading 
between  the  lines  the  spiritual  life  which  the  nar- 
rator did  not  expressly  utter.  This  is  not  always 
such  a  simple  matter.  We  have  in  some  cases  got- 
ten out  of  touch  with  the  emotions  of  older  times 
and  the  expressions  for  them.  Why,  for  instance, 
did  Rebeccah  veil  herself  when  she  caught  sight  of 


LITERARY  FORM  OF  THE  LEGENDS.         63 

Isaac?  (xxiv.  25.)  Why  did  the  daughters  of  Lot  go 
in  unto  him?  Why  did  Tamar  desire  offspring  of 
Judah?  (xxxvii.)  What  is  the  connexion  of  the 
awakening  modesty  of  the  first  men  and  their  sin? 
In  such  cases  exegesis  has  often  gone  far  astray  by 
taking  modern  motives  and  points  of  view  for 
granted. 

A  further  medium  of  expression  for  the  spiritual 
life  of  the  personages  is  articulate  speech.  Words 
are  not,  it  is  true,  so  vivid  as  actions,  but  to  make 
up  for  this  they  can  the  better  reveal  the  inner  life 
of  the  personages.  The  early  story-tellers  were 
masters  in  the  art  of  finding  words  that  suit  the 
mood  of  the  speakers:  thus  the  malice  of  the  cun- 
ning serpent  is  expressed  in  words,  as  well  as  the 
guilelessness  of  the  childlike  woman,  Sarah's  jeal- 
ousy of  her  slave  as  well  as  the  conciliatoriness  of 
Abraham  (xvi.  6),  the  righteous  wrath  of  Abimelech 
(xx.  9),  the  caution  of  the  shrewd  Jacob  (xxxii.  9), 
and  the  bitter  lament  of  Esau  (xxvii.  36)  and  of 
Laban  (xxxi.  43)  when  deceived  by  Jacob.  Notable 
masterpieces  of  the  portrayal  of  character  in  words 
are  the  temptation  of  the  first  couple  and  the  con- 
versation between  Abraham  and  Isaac  on  the  way  to 
the  mount  of  sacrifice. 


LACONISM    OF    THE    LEGEND    WRITERS. 

But  even  in  this  connexion  we  find  many  things 
to  surprise  us.  First  of  all,  that  the  personages  of 
Genesis  often  fail  to  speak  where  the  modern  writer 
would  surely  have  them  do  so,  and  where  the  very 
nature  of  the  case  seems  to  require  it.  We  may 
well   imagine  that  Joseph  complained   aloud  when 


64        THE  LEGENDS  OE  GENESIS. 

he  was  cast  into  the  pit  and  carried  away  to  Egypt 
(cp.  also  xlii.  21),  that  the  murder  of  Abel  was  pre- 
ceded by  a  dispute,  that  Hagar  left  Abraham's 
house  weeping  and  complaining  that  Abraham  had 
put  her  away  (xxi.  14);  but  there  is  nothing  of  the 
kind.  The  first  couple  do  not  utter  a  word  of  reply 
when  God  pronounces  his  curse  upon  their  future: 
they  do  not  even  indulge  in  self-accusations;  not  a 
word  does  Rebeccah  say  in  chapter  xxvi.,  nor  Noah 
during  the  Deluge,  nor  Abraham  in  chapter  xviii, 
when  a  son  is  promised  him  or  when  he  is  com- 
manded to  sacrifice  Isaac;  neither  does  Hagar  when 
she  sees  her  child  dying,  nor  later  when  God  heard 
the  weeping  of  Ishmael.  One  who  examined  these 
references  might  easily  conclude  that  the  person- 
ages of  Genesis  were  intended  to  be  portrayed  as 
taciturn  and  even  secretive;  he  would  find  the  only 
talkative  individual  to  be — God. 

But  if  we  go  more  deeply  into  these  legends,  we 
perceive  that  this  extraordinary  laconism  is  part  of 
the  style  of  the  narrator.  The  narrators  subordinated 
everything  to  the  action.  They  introduced  only 
such  speeches  as  really  advanced  the  action. 
Hence  especially  they  avoided  giving  utterance  to 
the  feelings  of  the  merely  passive  personages. 
Whether  Joseph  complains  or  keeps  silence,  when 
his  brethren  sell  him,  makes  no  difference  with  his 
destiny.  What  words  were  spoken  by  Abraham  and 
Noah  when  they  received  the  commands  of  God 
makes  no  difference;  suffice  it,  they  obeyed.  The 
destiny  of  the  first  family  is  fixed  when  God  has 
cursed  them;  no  self-reproaches  will  help  the  mat- 
ter. Or,  what  do  we  care  about  the  dispute  that 
preceded  the  murder  of  Abel,  since  we  know  the 


LITERARY  FORM  OF  THE  LEGENDS.         65 

reason  which  prompted  Cain's  deed!  And  it  appears 
perfectly  natural  that  men  should  make  no  reply  to 
the  promises  of  God,  as  is  usually  the  case;  for 
what  can  man  add  when  God  has  spoken? 

The  other  side  of  this  strangely  laconic  method  is 
that  the  remarks  which  the  narrator  does  introduce 
are  an  essential  part  of  the  narrative.  The  conver- 
sation between  the  serpent  and  the  woman  is  to 
show  how  it  came  about  that  the  forbidden  fruit  was 
eaten.  Cain  pours  forth  his  guilt-laden  heart  before 
God,  and  as  a  result  modifies  his  sentence.  Abra- 
ham begs  his  wife  to  declare  herself  his  sister;  and 
thus  it  comes  about  that  she  was  taken  into  the 
harem  of  Pharaoh  (xii.  u  ff.).  Abraham  gave  Lot 
the  choice  of  going  to  the  east  or  to  the  west;  hence 
Lot  chose  the  plain  of  the  Jordan.  At  Sarah's 
request  Abraham  takes  Hagar  as  concubine  and  at 
her  request  he  gives  her  up  again.  In  these  cases 
the  words  are  not  idle;  on  the  contrary  they  are 
necessary  to  suggest  an  inner  motive  for  the  action 
to  follow.  Especially  necessary  are  the  words  of 
cursing  and  of  promise;  they  are  the  very  climax  of 
the  story,  up  to  which  all  the  rest  leads.  This 
explains  why  God  is  so  often  represented  as  speak- 
ing in  Genesis;  for  speech  is  really  the  chief 
medium  through  which  God  influences  the  action  in 
these  legends. 

In  some  places  the  narrators  have  introduced  mon- 
ologues, the  most  unconcrete  of  all  forms  of  speech, 
when  the  situation  showed  that  there  was  no  one  pres- 
ent to  whom  the  person  could  have  spoken.  This 
is  quite  commonly  the  case  with  God;  for  to  whom 
should  God  reveal  his  most  hidden  decrees?  But  in 
a  few  cases  we  can   infer   (i.   26;    ii.  6  f.)   an  elder 


66        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

form  of  the  account,  in  which  God  addressed  him- 
self to  his  celestial  associates. 

But  even  in  the  laconic  legends  there  are 
speeches  which,  while  they  are  not  exactly  neces- 
sary, either  characterise  a  person  or  attempt  to  give 
the  opinion  of  the  narrator,  or  which  aim  at  some 
other  point  which  the  narrator  wants  to  make. 
Many  of  the  speeches  in  Genesis  are  exceedingly 
brief.  Recall  the  lament  of  Hagar:  "I  am  fleeing 
before  the  face  of  my  mistress"  (xvi.  8),  or  the  words 
of  the  daughters  of  Lot  (xix.  31),  of  Sarah  (xxi. 
10),  of  Abraham  (xxi.  24),  "I  will  swear,"  of 
Rebeccah  (xxiv.  18  ff.),  of  Jacob  (xxv.  33),  "Swear 
to  me  this  day,"  of  Isaac  (xxvi.  7),  "She  is  my 
sister,"  of  the  shepherds  of  Gerar  (xxvi.  20),  "The 
water  is  ours,"  of  Isaac's  slaves  (xxvi.  32),  "We 
have  found  water,"  of  Laban  (xxix.  14),  "Yea, 
thou  art  my  flesh  and  blood,"  and  so  on.  Of 
course,  the  speeches  are  not  always  so  brief;  they 
are  especially  apt  to  grow  longer  in  the  solemn  and 
impressive  formulae  of  cursing  and  blessing.  But 
in  general  we  may  see  in  brevity  a  characteristic 
mark  of  a  certain  type  in  Genesis. 

Even  such  utterances  do  not  always  reveal  the 
ultimate  purpose  of  the  actors,  and  reveal  their  spirit- 
ual life  only  in  an  indirect  way.  Hence  the  expres- 
sions are  not  always  entirely  clear  for  us,  and 
require  an  especial  gift  for  their  interpretation.  We 
are  told  that  God  forbade  to  man  the  fruit  of  the 
tree  of  life,  but  his  reason  for  this  is  not  given. 
What  thought  was  in  God's  mind  when  threatening 
man  with  immediate  death,  whereas  this  result  did 
not  actually  follow?  So,  too,  we  learn  that  the  ser- 
pent   desires    to    betray   the    woman,    but    not    his 


LITERARY  FORM  OF  THE  LEGENDS.  67 

reason.  And  even  such  psychological  masterpieces 
as  the  story  of  the  temptation  are  only  indirect 
portrayals  of  soul-life. 


NO    NATURE-LOVE    IN    GENESIS. 


y 


Very  many  of  the  legends  are  no  less  laconic  in 
their  descriptions  of  incidental  circumstances.  In 
this  respect  also  there  is  a  great  difference  between 
the  primitive  literary  art  and  that  of  modern  story- 
tellers. Of  course,  the  ancients  have  no  touch  of 
the  intimate  feeling  for  the  landscape;  there  is  no 
trace  of  nature-love  in  Genesis.  The  facts  that  the 
story  of  Eden  is  set  among  green  trees,  the  story 
of  Hagar  in  the  barren  desolation  of  the  wilder- 
ness, the  story  of  Joseph  in  the  land  of  the  Nile, 
affect  the  course  of  the  story  in  certain  respects, 
indeed,  since  the  first  pair  clothe  themselves  with 
leaves  and  since  the  desert  is  a  place  where  one  can 
get  lost,  and  where  there  is  no  water.  But  these 
facts  in  no  wise  affect  the  mood  or  sentiment  of  the 
action. 

ECONOMY    OF    DETAILS. 

But  aside  from  this  intimate  feeling  for  the  life 
of  nature,  which  was  foreign  to  the  primitive  man, 
how  easy  it  would  have  been  to  give  a  description 
of  Paradise!  What  modern  poet  would  have  missed 
the  opportunity!  But  the  early  story-tellers  were 
content  to  say  that  there  were  beautiful  trees  there, 
and  the  source  of  mighty  rivers.  It  is  a  piece  of 
the  same  method  that  the  narrator  does  not  tell  us 
with  what  weapon  Cain  slew  Abel;  he  tells  us 
merely  that  Noah   planted  vines  and   then   that  he 


68        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

drank  of  the  wine,  omitting  the  intervening  steps 
of  picking  and  pressing  the  grapes;  he  no  more  tells 
us  how  the  contempt  of  Hagar  was  expressed  (xvi. 
4)  than  how  Sarah  took  her  revenge.  We  are  wont 
to  admire  the  circumstantiality  of  the  narratives, 
and  justly,  but  this  by  no  means  implies  that  the 
legends  abound  in  striking  and  highly  concrete 
touches;  on  the  contrary,  they  present  on  the  whole 
not  an  abundance,  but  a  paucity,  of  concrete  ele- 
ments. But  the  little  that  we  have  is  so  judiciously 
selected  that  we  are  warranted  in  seeking  for  a  pur- 
pose in  almost  every  minute  feature. 

This  economy  of  circumstantial  details  is  the 
more  striking  because  alongside  such  lightly 
sketched  features,  and  especially  in  the  more 
detailed  narratives,  there  are  often  very  minute 
descriptions.  Thus,  for  instance,  the  meal  that 
Abraham  serves  to  the  three  men  is  described  in 
detail,  while  the  meal  of  Lot  is  but  briefly 
sketched.  For  the  purpose  of  exegesis  it  is  very 
suggestive  to  keep  this  question  constantly  in  mind, 
to  observe  the  brief  and  detailed  treatments,  and  to 
consider  everywhere  the  interest  of  the  narrator. 
In  general  this  will  warrant  the  conclusion  that  the 
narrator  portrays  the  principal  events  concretely, 
while  merely  hinting  at  or  omitting  those  which 
are  incidental  to  the  action:  thus,  for  instance,  in 
the  story  of  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac  the  three  days' 
journey  is  covered  at  a  bound,  while  the  short  pas- 
sage to  the  place  of  sacrifice  is  described  in  all 
detail.  The  narrator  is  quite  arbitrary  in  the  mat- 
ter. Similarly  the  experiences  of  Abraham's  servant 
on  the  day  when  he  sued  for  the  hand  of  Rebeccah 
are  reported  very  minutely,  while  all  the  days  con- 


LITERARY  FORM  OF  THE  LEGENDS.         69 

sumed   in  the  journey  to  the  city  of  Nahor  are  dis- 
posed of  in  a  breath. 

This  emphasis  laid  upon  the  action  is  seen  also  in 
the  manner  of  the  conclusion  of  the  narrative.  The 
legends  stop  promptly  when  they  have  attained  the 
desired  object,  not  with  a  gradual  cadence,  but  with 
a  sudden  jolt.  This  observation  also  is  important 
for  exegesis.  The  point  just  before  the  close  is 
recognised  as  the  climax  by  the  narrator.  Yet 
there  are  here  two  varieties  of  conclusion:  the  cus- 
tomary sort  follows  the  climax  with  a  short  sentence 
(the  type  is  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac) ;  the  less  common, 
and  plainly  more  impressive,  closes  with  a  pathetic 
address  (the  curse  of  Noah  is  here  the  type). 

UNITY   AND    COHERENCE    OF    PARTS. 

From  the  above  observations  we  conclude  that 
in  the  primitive  legends  everything  is  subordinated 
to  the  action.  In  other  literatures  there  are  nar- 
ratives in  which  the  action  is  merely  a  garb  or  a 
thread,  while  the  chief  concern  is  the  psychologic 
study,  the  brilliant  conversation,  or  the  idea;  but 
not  so  with  the  primitive  Hebrew  legend.  The 
primitive  man  demanded  from  his  story-teller  first 
of  all  action;  he  demands  that  something  shall  hap- 
pen in  the  story  to  please  his  eye.  But  the  first 
essential  in  such  a  story  is  to  him  its  inner  unity; 
the  narrator  must  furnish  him  a  connected  series  of 
events  each  necessarily  dependent  on  the  preceding. 

One  of  the  chief  charms  of  the  early  legend  is  just 
this:  to  show  how  one  thing  resulted  from  another. 
The  more  plausible  and  necessary  this  connexion 
appears,  the  more  attractive  seems  the  whole  story. 
A  famine  forces  Abraham  to  go  to  Egypt;  but  he  is 


70        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

afraid  of  being  killed  there  on  account  of  his  beau- 
tiful wife.  Therefore  he  reports  his  wife  to  be  his 
sister.  Deceived  by  this  Pharaoh  takes  Sarah  and 
makes  presents  to  Abraham.  Therefore  God  pun- 
ishes Pharaoh.  In  eonseqtcence  of  this  Pharaoh 
releases  Sarah  but  permits  Abraham  to  retain  the 
presents. — Sarah  has  no  children,  but  desires  them. 
Therefore  she  gives  her  maid  to  Abraham  as  con- 
cubine. Thus  Hagar  conceives  by  Abraham. 
Hc?iee  Hagar  despises  her  mistress.  This  offends 
the  proud  Sarah  most  deeply.  Therefore  she  causes 
Abraham  to  restore  Hagar  to  her,  and  mistreats  her. 
As  a  result  Hagar  flees  into  the  desert.  Here  God 
has  compassion  on  her  and  promises  her  a  son. 

Observe  how  in  such  cases  each  successive  mem- 
ber is  linked  to  the  preceding  one;  how  each  pre- 
ceding member  appears  as  the  natural  cause  or  at 
least  the  antecedent  of  the  succeeding  one.  We  are 
in  the  habit,  following  a  sort  of  tradition,  of  calling 
this  kind  of  narrative  childish;  but  in  so  doing  we 
are  only  partially  right. 

These  narratives,  then,  are  exceedingly  tense  in 
their  connexion.  The  narrators  do  not  like  digres- 
sions, but  press  with  all  their  energy  toward  the 
mark.  Hence  they  avoid,  if  possible,  the  introduc- 
tion cf  new  features  in  a  given  story,  but  seek  an 
uninterrupted  connexion.  Rarely  indeed  are  new 
assumptions  introduced,  but  go6d  style  demands  the 
announcement  of  all  assumptions  as  near  the  begin- 
ning as  possible.  In  pursuit  of  this  method  it  is 
considered  permissible  to  skip  over  the  necessary 
consequences  of  what  has  been  told,  provided  only 
that  those  features  stand  forth  which  are  essential  to 
the    continuation    of   the    action.      There   must    be 


LITERARY  FORM  OF  THE  LEGENDS.         71 

nothing  too  much,  and  nothing  too  little.  The  nar- 
rator does  not  spring  aside;  but  the  hearer  also 
must  not  be  allowed  to  spring  aside:  the  narrator 
holds  fast  to  him  so  that  he  can  think  only  what  the 
narrator  wants  to  have  him  think. 

VARIATIONS    ON    A    GIVEN    THEME. 

Many  of  the  legends  are  fond  of  varying  a  given 
motive.  Consider  how  the  story  of  Eden  makes 
everything  dependent  on  the  nakedness  and  the 
clothing  of  man,  and  how  the  relation  of  "field" 
and  "field-tiller"  (this  is  the  etymology  of  the 
Hebrew  word  here  used  for  "man")  pervades  this 
whole  legend;  how  the  story  of  Joseph's  sale  into 
Egypt  treats  the  coat-sleeve  (coat  of  many  colors) 
and  the  dreams;  how  the  story  of  Jacob's  last  testa- 
ment (xlvii.  29  ff.)  constantly  connects  his  actions 
with  his  bed:  in  praying  he  bows  at  the  head  of  the 
bed,  xlvii.  31;  in  blessing  he  rises  up  in  bed, 
xlviii.  2;  in  dying  he  stretches  himself  out  upon  his 
bed,  xlix.  33  (English  version:  "gathered  up  his 
feet  in  his  bed"),  and  so  on.  In  this  the  rule  is, 
quite  in  opposition  to  our  sense  of  style,  to  repeat 
the  expression  every  time  the  thing  is  referred  to, 
so  that  one  and  the  same  word  often  runs  through 
the  story  like  a  red  thread.  Undoubtedly  this  cus- 
tom originated  in  the  poverty  of  the  language;  but 
the  narrators  of  our  legends  follow  it  in  order  to 
produce  an  impression  of  unity  and  simplicity. 

Precisely  because  of  this  inward  connexion  in  the 
story  it  is  possible  in  many  places  where  our 
received  text  shows  gaps  or  distortions  to  recognise 
the  original  form  of  the  legend:  the  text-criticism 
is  in  this  point  very  much  more  positive  than  in  the 


72        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

case  of  the  prophets,  the  laws  and  the  songs,  which 
lacked  this  connected  condensation. 

PLAUSIBILITY    DEMANDED. 

Furthermore,  the  course  of  the  action  must  be 
probable,  highly  credible,  even  unavoidable. 
Nowhere  must  the  hearer  be  able  to  make  the  objec- 
tion that  what  is  being  told  is  inconsistent  with 
what  has  preceded  or  with  itself.  Hagar,  when 
elevated  to  too  high  station,  could  not  fail  to  grow 
haughty;  and  Sarah  could  not  help  feeling  offended. 
True,  the  probability  aimed  at  by  these  old  story- 
tellers was  different  from  that  of  which  we  speak. 
Their  understanding  of  nature  was  different  from 
ours;  for  instance,  they  regarded  it  as  entirely 
credible  that  all  the  kinds  of  animals  could  get  into 
the  ark;  furthermore,  the  way  in  which  they  speak 
of  God  and  his  participation  in  the  affairs  of  the 
world  was  naiver  than  is  possible  for  us  of  modern 
times;  they  regarded  it  as  quite  plausible  that  the 
serpent  should  have  spoken  in  primitive  times;  that 
Joseph,  the  grand  vizier,  should  look  after  the  sale 
of  the  corn  in  person. 

Hence  it  would  be  quite  unwarranted  to  speak  of 
the  "arbitrariness"  and  "childish  recklessness"  of 
the  legends  simply  because  the  assumptions  of  the 
narrators  are  impossible  to  us  in  modern  times. 
Only  in  a  very  few  places  can  the  eye  of  the  modern 
reader,  even  though  trained  for  criticism,  detect 
improbabilities.  In  this  line  we  may  ask  why 
Joseph,  who  was  so  much  attached  to  his  father, 
failed  to  communicate  with  him  all  the  long  years. 
Even  after  Hagar  and  her  son  were  once  rescued, 
were   not  the  dangers  of  the  desert  sure  to  recur 


LITERARY  FORM  OF  THE  LEGENDS.         73 

every  day?  But  the  auditor  of  ancient  times 
doubtless  did  not  ask  such  questions;  he  was  more 
willing  to  surrender  to  the  narrator,  and  was  more 
easily  charmed;  he  was  also  more  credulous  than  we 
are;  compare  for  instance,  xliii.  23. 

SUSTAINED    INTEREST. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  a  well-told  legend  the  inci- 
dents are  not  so  simple  that  one  can  guess  the  whole 
course  of  events  from  the  first  few  words;  if  it  were 
so,  the  legend  would  lose  its  interest.  No  one 
cares  to  hear  of  things  that  are  self-evident.  On 
the  contrary,  our  story-tellers  are  dealing  with  what 
they  regard  as  a  complicated  situation,  whose  final 
outcome  cannot  be  surveyed  in  advance  by  the 
hearer.  This  leads  him  to  listen  the  more  intently. 
Jacob  wrestles  with  a  supernatural  being;  which  of 
the  two  will  conquer?  Jacob  and  Laban  are  equally 
gifted  in  cunning;  which  will  succeed  in  deceiving 
the  other?  The  shrewd  but  unwarlike  Jacob  has  to 
meet  the  dull  but  physically  superior  Esau;  how 
will  he  manage  him?  Abraham  has  to  go  down 
into  Egypt,  and  how  will  he  fare  there?  Thus  all 
these  stories  are  more  or  less  exciting.  The  child- 
like listener  holds  his  breath,  and  rejoices  when  the 
hero  finally  escapes  all  the  threatening  dangers. 

The  narrators  are  very  fond  of  contrasts:  the 
child  cast  out  into  the  desert  becomes  a  mighty 
people;  a  poor  slave,  languishing  in  prison, 
becomes  the  ruler  of  Egypt  with  all  her  abundance. 
They  try  if  possible  to  focus  these  contrasts  into  a 
single  point:  at  the  moment  when  Hagar  is  in  utter 
despair,  God  takes  compassion  on  her;  the  very 
instant  when  Abraham   raises  his  arm  to  slay  Isaac, 


74  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

he  is  checked  by  God.  Lot  lingers,  and  Jacob  holds 
the  divinity  fast  until  the  dawn  is  at  hand:  the  next 
moment  will  surely  bring  the  decision. 

And  where  this  intense  interest  is  wholly  lacking, 
where  there  is  no  complication  of  interests,  there 
we  have  no  real  legend.  Thus  the  account  of  crea- 
tion in  Genesis  i.  is  scarcely  to  be  called  a  story; 
and  yet,  from  v.  2  and  26,  as  well  as  from  the  poetic 
versions  referred  to  on  pp.  10-12  and  25-26,  we  can 
conjecture  a  form  of  the  account  in  which  more  per- 
sonages appear  and  in  which  the  world  is  created 
after  a  conflict  of  God  with  Chaos.  In  like  manner, 
the  accounts  of  Abraham's  migration  and  of  his 
league  with  Abimelech  are  not  real  legends,  but 
only  legendary  traditions  which  have  originated 
probably  from  the  decay  of  earlier  and  fuller 
legends. 

LEGENDS    NOT    PURE    INVENTION. 

As  we  have  seen  in  the  second  division  of  this 
treatise,  the  legends  are  not  free  inventions  of  the 
imagination.  On  the  contrary,  a  legend  adopts  and 
works  over  certain  data  which  come  from  reflexion, 
tradition  or  observation.  These  fundamental  data 
have  been  treated  in  the  preceding  pages;  our  pres- 
ent task  is  to  consider  the  part  taken  by  the  imagin- 
ation in  the  development  of  the  legends.  With  this 
subject  we  have  reached  the  very  heart  of  our 
investigations. 

As  has  been  shown  above,  many  of  the  legends 
seem  intended  to  answer  definite  questions.  That 
is,  these  legends  are  not  the  thoughtless  play  of  an 
imagination  acting  without  other  purpose  than  the 
search  for  the  beautiful,   but  they  have  a  specific 


LITER  A  R  Y  FORM  OF  THE  LEGENDS.         75 

purpose,  a  point,  which  is  to  instruct.  Accord- 
ingly, if  these  narratives  are  to  attain  their  object 
they  must  make  this  point  very  clear.  They  do  this 
in  a  decided  way,  so  decidedly  that  even  we  late- 
born  moderns  can  see  the  point  clearly,  and  can 
infer  from  it  the  question  answered.  The  sympa- 
thetic reader  who  has  followed  the  unhappy-happy 
Hagar  on  her  way  through  the  desert  will  find  no 
word  in  the  whole  story  more  touching  that  the  one 
which  puts  an  end  to  all  her  distress:  God  hears. 
But  this  word  contains  at  the  same  time  the  point 
aimed  at,  for  upon  this  the  narrator  wished  to  build 
the  interpretation  of  the  name  Ishmael  ("God 
hears"). — Or  what  word  in  the  legend  of  the  sacri- 
fice of  Isaac  stamps  itself  so  deeply  upon  the 
memory  as  the  affecting  word  with  which  Abraham 
from  the  depths  of  his  breaking  heart  quiets  the 
questioning  of  his  unsuspecting  child:  God  will  pro- 
vide! This  word,  which  made  God  himself  a 
reality,  is  so  emphasised  because  it  answers  the 
question  after  the  etymology  of  the  place   (Jeruel). 

Other  legends  reflect  historic  events  or  situations, 
and  in  such  cases  it  was  the  duty  of  the  narrator  to 
bring  out  these  references  clearly  enough  to  satisfy 
his  well-informed  hearer.  Thus  in  the  legend  of 
the  flight  of  Hagar  the  actors  are  at  first  mere  indi- 
viduals whose  destinies  are  interesting  enough,  to 
be  sure,  but  at  the  climax,  with  the  words  of  God 
regarding  Ishmael  the  narrator  shows  that  in 
Ishmael  he  is  treating  of  a  race  and  its  destinies. 

Hebrew  taste  is  especially  fond  of  playing  about 
the  names  of  leading  heroes  and  places,  even  when 
no  etymology  is  involved  Many  of  the  legends 
are  quite  filled  with  such  references  to  names.     Thus 


76        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

the  legend  of  the  Deluge  plays  with  the  name  of 
Noah  (cp.  viii.  4,  9,  21),  the  story  of  the  sacrifice  of 
Isaac  with  Jeruel  (xxii.  8,  12,  13),  the  story  of  the 
meeting  of  Jacob  and  Esau  with  Mahanaim  and 
Penuel  (cp.  p.   321    in  my  Commentary),  and  so  on. 

Thus  these  legends  are  rich  in  points  and  allu- 
sions; they  are  so  to  speak  transparent:  even  the  one 
who  reads  them  naively  and  simply  as  beautiful 
stories  finds  pleasure  in  them,  but  only  the  one  who 
holds  them  up  against  the  light  of  the  primitive 
understanding  can  catch  all  their  beautiful  colors; 
to  him  they  appear  as  small  but  flashing  and  bril- 
liant works  of  art.  The  characteristic  feature  of  the 
Hebrew  popular  legends  as  contrasted  with  other 
legends,  if  we  understand  the  matter,  consists  in  the 
flashing  of  these  points. 

The  art  of  the  story-tellers  consists  in  avoiding 
every  suspicion  of  deliberate  purpose  at  the  same 
time  that  they  give  great  prominence  to  their  point. 
With  marvellous  elegance,  with  fascinating  grace, 
they  manage  to  reach  the  goal  they  have  set.  They 
tell  a  little  story  so  charmingly  and  with  such 
fidelity  to  nature  that  we  listen  to  them  all  unsus- 
pecting; and  all  at  once,  before  we  expect  it,  they 
are  at  their  goal.  For  instance,  the  story  of  Hagar's 
flight  (xvi.)  wishes  to  explain  how  Ishmael,  although 
the  child  of  our  Abraham,  was  born  in  the  wilder- 
ness; to  this  end  it  draws  a  picture  of  Abraham's 
household:  it  shows  how,  by  an  entirely  credible 
series  of  events,  Ishmael's  mother  while  with  child 
was  brought  to  desperation  and  fled  into  the  wilder- 
ness; thence  it  came  that  Ishmael  is  a  child  of  the 
desert. 

In  many  cases  the  task  of  the  narrator  was  very 


LITER  A  R  Y  FORM  OF  THE  LEGENDS.         77 

complex:  he  had  to  answer  a  whole  series  of  differ- 
ent questions,  or  to  assimilate  a  quantity  of  antece- 
dent presumptions.  Thus,  one  variant  of  the  legend 
of  Babel  asks  the  origin  of  the  difference  of  lan- 
guages and  of  the  city  of  Babel,  the  other  wants  to 
know  the  source  of  the  distribution  of  races  and 
also  of  a  certain  ancient  structure.  Or  again,  the 
story  of  Abraham  at  Hebron  undertakes  to  tell  not 
only  the  origin  of  the  worship  at  Hebron,  but  also 
to  explain  the  birth  of  Isaac  and  the  choice  of  his 
name.  Here  then  the  task  was,  to  unite  the  differ- 
ing elements  into  unity.  And  it  is  just  here  that 
the  story-tellers  show  their  art.  The  prime  motive 
furnishes  the  leading  thread  of  the  story;  the  subor- 
dinate motives  they  spin  into  a  single  scene  which 
they  introduce  into  the  body  of  the  story  with  easy 
grace. 

ETYMOLOGIES    SUBORDINATE    FEATURES. 

The  etymologies  usually  constitute  such  subordi- 
nate motives.  Thus  in  the  story  of  the  worship  at 
Jeruel  a  scene  is  interjected  which  is  to  explain  the 
name  of  the  place,  "God  sees";  but  this  little 
scene,  the  dialogue  between  Abraham  and  Isaac, 
xxii.  7  f.,  expresses  so  completely  the  tone  and 
sentiment  of  the  whole  story  that  we  should  not  be 
willing  to  dispense  with  it  even  if  it  had  no  partic- 
ular point  of  its  own.  In  other  cases  the  artists 
have  joined  together  two  leading  motives;  then 
they  invented  a  very  simple  and  plausible  transi- 
tion from  one  to  the  other:  thus  the  first  part  of  the 
legend  of  Hebron  presents  the  establishment  of 
worship  there   under  the    guise    of   the    story   that 


THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

Abraham  entertained  the  three  divine  visitors  there; 
the  second  portion,  which  is  to  account  for  the  birth 
of  Isaac,  simply  proceeds  with  the  given  situation, 
having  the  three  guests  enter  into  a  conversation  at 
table  and  therein  promise  Isaac  to  Abraham.  It  is 
the  most  charming  portion  of  the  task  of  the  inter- 
preter of  Genesis  to  search  for  these  matters,  and 
not  only,  so  far  as  this  is  possible,  to  discover  what 
is  for  us  the  oldest  meaning  of  the  legends,  but  also 
to  observe  the  refinements  of  artistic  composition 
in  the  stories. 


SUMMARY. 

We  have  to  do,  then,  even  in  the  oldest  legends 
of  Genesis,  not  with  aimless,  rude  stories,  tossed  off 
without  reflexion,  but  on  the  contrary,  there  is 
revealed  in  them  a  mature,  perfected,  and  very 
forcible  art.  The  narratives  have  a  very  decided 
style. 

Finally,  attention  should  be  called  to  the  fact  that 
the  narrators  scarcely  ever  express  a  distinct  opin- 
ion about  persons  or  facts.  This  constitutes  a  clear 
distinction  between  them  and  the  later  legends  and 
histories  worked  over  under  the  influence  of  the 
prophets.  Of  course,  the  narrators  of  the  early 
legends  had  their  opinions;  they  are  by  no  means 
objective,  but  rather  intensely  subjective;  and  often 
the  real  comprehension  of  the  legend  lies  in  our 
obtaining  an  impression  of  this  opinion  of  the  nar- 
rator. But  they  almost  never  gave  expression  to 
this  opinion:  they  were  not  able  to  reflect  clearly 
on  psychological  processes.  Wherever  we  do  get 
a  more  distinct  view  of  such  an  opinion   it  is  by 


LITERARY  FORM  OF  THE  LEGENDS.        79 

means  of  the  speeches  of  the  actors  which  throw 
some  light  on  what  has  happened;  consider  partic- 
ularly the  utterances  of  Abraham  and  Abimelech, 
chapter  xx.,  or  the  final  scene  of  the  story  of  Laban 
and  Jacob,  xxxi.  26  ff.  At  the  same  time  this  sup- 
pression of  opinions  shows  most  clearly  that  the 
narrators,  especially  the  earlier  ones,  did  not  care 
to  proclaim  general  truths. 

It  is  true,  there  are  at  the  basis  of  many  of  the 
legends  and  more  or  less  distinctly  recognisable, 
certain  general  truths,  as,  in  the  case  of  the  story 
of  the  migration  of  Abraham,  a  thought  of  the  value 
of  faith,  and  in  the  story  of  Hebron,  the  thought  of 
the  reward  of  hospitality.  But  we  must  not  imag" 
ine  that  these  narratives  aimed  primarily  at  these 
truths;  they  do  not  aim  to  teach  moral  truths. 
With  myths,  as  has  been  shown  on  pages  15-17,  this 
is  different,  for  they  aim  to  answer  questions  of  a 
general  nature. 

AN    EARLY    ISRAELITISH    ROMANCE 

Out  of  the  type  of  legend  which  has  been 
sketched  in  essentials  in  the  preceding  pages 
there  was  evolved,  as  we  may  discover  even  in 
Genesis  itself,  another  type  relatively  much  nearer 
to  modern  fiction.  While  the  story  of  Hagar's 
flight  is  a  classic  instance  of  the  former  sort,  the 
most  conspicuous  example  of  the  second  is  the  story 
of  Joseph.  It  is  necessary  only  to  compare  the  two 
narratives  in  order  to  see  the  great  differences  in 
the  two  kinds:  there,  everything  characteristically 
brief  and  condensed,  here,  just  as  characteristically, 
everything  long  spun  out. 


80  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

The  first  striking  difference  is  the  extent  of  the 
stories.  Since  the  earlier  form  was  in  vogue  we  see 
that  men  have  learned  to  construct  more  consider- 
able works  of  art  and  are  fond  of  doing  so.  The 
second  is,  that  people  are  no  longer  satisfied  to  tell 
a  single  legend  by  itself,  but  have  the  gift  of  com- 
bining several  legends  into  a  whole.  Thus  it  is  in 
the  story  of  Joseph,  so  also  in  the  Jacob-Esau-Laban 
story  and  in  the  legends  of  Abraham  and  Lot. 

Let  us  inquire  how  these  combinations  came 
about.  In  the  first  place,  related  legends  attracted 
one  another.  For  instance,  it  was  to  be  expected 
that  legends  treating  the  same  individual  would 
constitute  themselves  into  a  small  epic,  as  in  the 
stories  of  Joseph  and  of  Jacob;  or  the  similar,  and 
yet  characteristically  different,  legends  of  Abraham 
at  Hebron  and  Lot  at  Sodom  have  become  united. 
Similarly  in  J,  a  story  of  the  creation  and  a  story  of 
Paradise  are  interwoven;  both  of  them  treat  the 
beginnings  of  the  race.  In  P  the  primitive  legends 
of  the  creation  and  of  the  deluge  originally  consti- 
tuted a  connected  whole.  In  many  cases  that  we 
can  observe  the  nature  of  the  union  is  identical:  the 
more  important  legend  is  split  in  two  and  the  less 
important  one  put  into  the  gap.  We  call  this 
device  in  composition,  which  is  very  common  in 
the  history  of  literature  —  instance  The  Arabian 
Nights,  the  Decameron,  Gil  Bias,  and  Hauff's  Tales — 
"enframed  stories."  Thus,  the  story  of  Esau  and 
Jacob  is  the  frame  for  the  story  of  Jacob  and  Laban; 
the  experiences  of  Joseph  in  Egypt  are  fitted  into 
the  story  of  Joseph  and  his  brethren;  similarly 
the  story  of  Abraham  at  Hebron  is  united  with  that 
of  Lot  at  Sodom. 


LITERARY  FORM  OF  THE  LEGENDS.        81 


DEVICES    FOR    UNITING    SEVERAL    STORIES. 

In  order  to  judge  of  the  artistic  quality  of  these 
compositions  we  must  first  of  all  examine  the  joints 
or  edges  of  the  elder  stories.  Usually  the  nar- 
rators make  the  transition  by  means  of  very  simple 
devices  from  one  of  the  stories  to  the  other.  The 
transition  par  excellence  is  the  journey.  When  the 
first  portion  of  the  Jacob-Esau  legend  is  finished 
Jacob  sets  out  for  Aram;  there  he  has  his  experi- 
ences with  Laban,  and  then  returns  to  Esau.  In 
the  story  of  Joseph  the  carrying  off  of  Joseph  to 
Egypt,  and  later  the  journey  of  his  brethren  thither, 
are  the  connecting  links  of  the  separate  stories. 
Similarly  in  the  story  of  Abraham  and  Lot,  we  are 
first  told  that  the  three  men  visited  Abraham  and 
went  afterwards  to  Sodom. 

Now  we  must  examine  how  these  various  journeys 
are  motivated.  The  sale  of  Joseph  into  Egypt  is 
the  goal  at  which  everything  that  precedes  has 
aimed.  The  journey  of  his  brethren  to  Egypt  is 
prompted  by  the  same  great  famine  which  had 
already  been  the  decisive  factor  in  bringing  Joseph 
to  honor  in  Egypt.  And  the  experiences  of  the 
brethren  in  Egypt  are  based  upon  Joseph's 
advancement.  Thus  we  see  that  the  story  of  Joseph 
is  very  cunningly  blended  into  a  whole. 

There  is  less  of  unity  in  the  story  of  Jacob;  but 
even  here  there  is  a  plausible  motive  why  Jacob 
goes  to  Laban:  he  is  fleeing  from  Esau.  In  other 
respects  we  find  here  the  original  legends  side  by 
side  unblended.  On  the  contrary,  in  the  story  of 
Abraham  and  Lot  no  reason  is  alleged  why  the  three 
men  go  directly  from  Abraham  to  Sodom;  that  is  to 


82  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

say,  there  is  here  no  attempt  at  an  inner  harmonis- 
ing of  the  different  legends,  but  the  narrator  has 
exerted  himself  all  the  more  to  devise  artificial  links 
of  connexion;  this  is  why  he  tells  that  Abraham 
accompanied  the  men  to  the  gates  of  Sodom,  and 
even  returned  to  the  same  place  on  the  following 
morning.  In  this  we  receive  most  clearly  the 
impression  of  conscious  art,  which  is  trying  to  make 
from  originally  disconnected  elements  a  more  plau- 
sible unity.  In  the  Joseph  legend  we  have  an 
instance  of  a  much  more  intimate  blending  of  parts 
than  the  "frames"  of  these  other  stories,  a  whole 
series  of  different  adventures  harmonised  and  inter- 
woven. 

EPIC     DISCURSIVENESS. 

Another  characteristic  feature  of  the  Joseph  story 
is  its  discursiveness,  which  stands  in  notable  con- 
trast with  the  brevity  of  the  older  narratives.  We 
find  in  it  an  abundance  of  long  speeches,  of  solilo- 
quies, of  detailed  descriptions  of  situations,  of 
expositions  of  the  thoughts  of  the  personages.  The 
narrator  is  fond  of  repeating  in  the  form  of  a  speech 
what  he  has  already  told.  What  are  we  to  think  of 
this  "epic  discursiveness"?  Not  as  an  especial  char- 
acteristic of  this  particular  narrative  alone,  for  we 
find  the  same  qualities,  though  less  pronounced,  in 
the  stories  of  the  wooing  of  Rebeccah,  of  Abraham 
at  the  court  of  Abimelech  (Genesis  xx.),  in  some 
features  of  the  story  of  Jacob  (notably  the  meeting 
of  Jacob  and  Esau) ;  and  the  stories  of  the  sacrifice 
of  Isaac  and  various  features  of  the  story  of  Abra- 
ham and  Lot  also  furnish  parallels. 

Very  evidently  we  have  to  do  here  with  a  distinct 


LITERARY  FORM  OF  THE  LEGENDS.         83 

art  of  story-telling,  the  development  of  a  new  taste. 
This  new  art  is  not  satisfied,  like   its  predecessor, 
with  telling  the  legend  in  the  briefest  possible  way 
and  with  suppressing  so  far  as  possible  all  incidental 
details;  but  it  aims  to  make  the  legend  richer  and  to 
develop  its  beauties  even  when  they  are  quite  inci- 
dental.    It  endeavors   to   keep  situations   that   are 
felt  to  be  attractive  and   interesting  before  the  eye 
of    the    hearers    as     long   as    possible.       Thus,    for 
instance,  the  distress  of  Joseph's  brethren  as  they 
stand  before  their  brother  is  portrayed  at  length; 
there  is  evident  intent  to  delay  the  narrative,  so  that 
the  hearer  may  have  time  to  get  the  full  flavor  of 
the  charm  of  the  situation.     Thus  Joseph  is  not  per- 
mitted to  discover  himself  at  the  very  first  meeting, 
in  order  that  this  scene  may  be  repeated;  he  is  made 
to  demand  that  Benjamin  be  brought  before  him, 
because  the  aged  Jacob  hesitates  a  long  time  to  obey 
this  demand,  and  thus  the  action  is  retarded.     Sim- 
ilarly in  the  story  of  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  the  nar- 
rative is  spun  out  just  before  the  appearance  of  God 
upon  the  scene,  in  order  to  postpone  the  catastrophe 
and  intensify  the  interest. 

The  means  that  is  applied  over  and  over  again  to 
prolong  the  account  is  to  report  the  same  scene 
twice,  though  of  course  with  variations.  Joseph 
interprets  dreams  for  Egyptian  officials  twice; 
Joseph's  brethren  must  meet  him  in  Egypt  twice; 
twice  he  hides  valuables  in  their  grain  sacks  in 
order  to  embarrass  them  (xlii.  25  ff.,  xliv.  2  ff.); 
twice  they  bargain  over  Joseph's  cup  with  the 
steward  and  with  Joseph  himself  (xliii.  13  ff.,  25  ff.), 
and  so  on.  Sometimes,  though  surely  less  frequently, 
it  is  possible  that  the  narrators  have  invented  new 


'J 


84        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

scenes  on  the  basis  of  the  earlier  motives,  as  with 
the  last  scene  between  Joseph  and  his  brethren, 
chapter  1. 

Quite  unique  is  the  intercalated  episode,  the 
negotiations  of  Abraham  with  God  regarding 
Sodom,  which  may  almost  be  called  a  didactic  com- 
position. It  is  written  to  treat  a  religious  problem 
which  agitated  the  time  of  the  author,  and  which 
occurred  to  him  in  connexion  with  the  story  of 
Sodom.  These  narrators  have  a  quite  remarkable 
fondness  for  long  speeches,  so  great  as  to  lead  them 
to  subordinate  the  action  to  the  speeches.  The 
most  marked  instance  is  the  meeting  of  Abraham 
with  Abimelech,  chapter  xx.  Here,  quite  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  regular  rule  of  ancient  style,  the  events 
are  not  told  in  the  order  in  which  they  occurred,  but 
a  series  of  occurrences  are  suppressed  at  the  begin- 
ning in  order  to  bring  them  in  later  in  the  succeed- 
ing speeches.  Thus  the  narrator  has  attempted  to 
make  the  speeches  more  interesting  even  at  the 
expense  of  the  incidents  to  be  narrated. 

It  is  also  a  favorite  device  to  put  substance  into 
the  speeches  by  having  what  has  already  been 
reported  repeated  by  one  of  the  personages  of  the 
story  (xliii.  13,  21,  30  ff . ;  xliii.  3,  7,  20  f. ;  xliv.  19 
ff).  The  rule  of  style  in  such  repetition  of  speech 
is,  contrary  to  the  method  of  Homer,  to  vary  them 
somewhat  the  second  time.  This  preference  for 
longer  speeches  is,  as  we  clearly  perceive,  a  second- 
ary phenomenon  in  Hebrew  style,  the  mark  of  a 
later  period.  We  observe  this  in  the  fact  that  the 
very  pieces  which  we  recognise  from  other  consider- 
ations as  the  latest  developments  of  the  legend 
or   as    intercalations    (xiii.    14-17;    xvi.  9  f . ;    xviii. 


LITERARY  FORM  OF  THE  LEGENDS.         85 

17-19,    23-33)    are    the   ones    which    contain    these 
speeches. 

We  may  find  this  delight  in  discursiveness  in 
other  species  of  Hebrew  literature  also.  The  brief, 
condensed  style  of  Amos  is  followed  by  the  dis- 
cursive style  of  a  Jeremiah,  and  the  same  relation 
exists  between  the  laconic  sentences  of  the  Book  of 
the  Covenant  and  the  long-winded  expositions  of 
Deuteronomy,  between  the  brief  apothegms  which 
constitute  the  heart  of  the  Book  of  Proverbs  and  the 
extended  speeches  which  were  afterwards  added  by 
way  of  introduction,  between  the  oldest  folk-songs, 
which  often  contain  but  a  single  line  each,  and  the 
long  poems  of  art  poetry. 

INTEREST    IN    SOUL-LIFE. 

We  do  not  always  agree  with  this  taste  of  the  later 
time;  for  instance,  the  story  of  Joseph  approaches 
the  danger-line  of  becoming  uninteresting  from 
excessive  detail.  On  the  other  hand,  this  discur- 
siveness is  at  the  same  time  the  evidence  of  a  newly 
acquired  faculty.  While  the  earlier  time  can- 
express  its  inner  life  only  in  brief  and  broken 
words,  the  new  generation  has  learned  to  observe 
itself  more  closely  and  to  express  itself  more  com- 
pletely. With  this  there  has  come  an  increase  of 
interest  in  the  soul-life  of  the  individual.  Psycho- 
logical problems  are  now  treated  with  fondness  and 
with  skill.  Thus  in  the  story  of  the  sacrifice  of 
Isaac  there  was  created  the  perfection  of  the  char- 
acter study. 

The  narrator  of  the  stories  of  Joseph  shows  himself 
a  master  of  the  art  of  painting  the  portrait  of  a  man 
by  means  of  many  small   touches.     Especially  sue- 


86  7  HE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

cessful  is  the  description  of  Joseph's  inner  vacilla- 
tion at  the  sight  of  Benjamin  (xliii.  30),  and  the 
soul  painting  when  Jacob  hears  that  Joseph  is  still 
alive  (xlv.  26),  and  elsewhere.  But  while  in  these 
later  narratives  the  incidental  features  of  the  old 
legend  are  still  developed  with  greater  detail,  on 
the  other  hand  this  very  fact  has  naturally  thrown 
the  chief  features  somewhat  into  the  background 
and  made  the  original  point  of  the  whole  less 
obvious.  This  result  has  been  further  favored  by 
the  circumstance  that  the  original  points  had  in 
many  cases  ceased  to  be  altogether  clear  to  those 
of  the  later  time.  Thus  in  the  story  of  Joseph  the 
historical  and  aetiological  elements  have  lost  impor- 
tance. 

The  difference  between  the  two  styles  is  so  great 
that  it  seems  advisable  to  distinguish  them  by 
different  names,  and  to  limit  the  use  of  "legend"  to 
the  first  while  we  call  the  second  "romance."  Of 
course,  the  transition  between  the  two  is  fluctuant; 
we  may  call  such  transition  forms  as  the  story  of 
Laban  and  Jacob,  or  that  of  Rebeccah,  "legends 
touched  with  romance,"  or  "romances  based  on 
legendary  themes." 

On  the  relative  age  of  these  styles,  also,  an  opin- 
ion may  be  ventured,  though  with  great  caution. 
The  art  of  narrative  which  was  acquired  in  the  writ- 
ing of  legends  was  applied  later  to  the  writing  of 
history,  where,  accordingly,  we  may  make  parallel 
observations.  Now  we  see  that  the  oldest  historical 
writing  known  to  us  has  already  adopted  the 
"detailed"  style.  Accordingly  we  may  assume  that 
this  "detailed"  style  was  cultivated  at  least  as  early 
as  the  beginning  of  the  time  of  the  kings.     And 


LITERARY  FORM  OF  THE  LEGENDS.        87 

therefore  the  condensed  style  must  have  been  culti- 
vated for  many  centuries  before  that  time.  How- 
ever, it  should  be  observed,  this  fixes  only  the 
time  of  the  styles  of  narrative,  and  not  the  age  of 
the  narratives  preserved  to  us  in  these  styles. 


IV. 


HISTORY    OF    THE     DEVELOPMENT 

OF  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS 

IN  ORAL  TRADITION. 

AT  the  time  when  they  were  written  down  the 
legends  were  already  very  old  and  had  already 
a  long  history  behind  them.  This  is  in  the  very 
nature  of  legend:  the  origin  of  legends  always 
eludes  the  eye  of  the  investigator,  going  back  into 
prehistoric  times.  And  so  it  is  in  the  present  case. 
The  great  age  of  the  legends  is  seen,  for  example, 
in  the  fact  that  they  often  speak  of  vanished  tribes, 
such  as  Abel  and  Cain,  Shem,  Ham  and  Japhet, 
Jacob  and  Esau,  none  of  which  are  known  to  his- 
torical times,  and  further,  by  the  primitive  vigor  of 
many  touches  that  reveal  to  us  the  religion  and  the 
morality  of  the  earliest  times,  as  for  instance,  the 
many  mythological  traces,  such  as  the  story  of  the 
marriages  with  angels,  of  Jacob's  wrestling  with 
God,  and  the  many  stories  of  deceit  and  fraud  on 
the  part  of  the  patriarchs,  and  so  on. 

FOREIGN    INFLUENCES. 

A  portion  of  these  legends,  perhaps  very  many, 
did  not  originate  in  Israel,  but  were  carried  into 
Israel  from  foreign  countries.  This  too  is  part  of 
the  nature  of  these  stories,  this  wandering  from  tribe 
to  tribe,  from   land  to  land,  and  also  from  religion 

88 


THE  LEGENDS  IN  ORAL   TRADITION.       89 

to  religion.  Thus  for  instance  many  of  our  German 
legends  and  Mdrchen  came  to  us  from  foreign  lands. 
And  even  to  this  day  there  is  perhaps  nothing  which 
modern  civilised  peoples  exchange  so  easily  and  so 
extensively  as  their  stories,  as  may  be  seen,  for 
instance,  in  the  enormous  circulation  of  foreign 
novels  in  Germany. 

Now  if  we  recall  that  Israel  lived  upon  a  soil 
enriched  by  the  civilisation  of  thousands  of  years, 
that  it  lived  by  no  means  in  a  state  of  isolation  but 
was  surrounded  on  all  sides  by  races  with  superior 
culture,  and  if  we  consider  further  the  international 
trade  and  intercourse  of  the  early  ages,  which  went 
from  Babylonia  to  Egypt  and  from  Arabia  to  the 
Mediterranean  by  way  of  Palestine,  we  are  war- 
ranted in  assuming  that  this  position  of  Israel 
among  the  nations  will  be  reflected  in  its  legends  as 
well  as  in  its  language,  which  must  be  literally  full 
of  borrowed  words. 

Investigators  hitherto,  especially  Wellhausen  and 
his  school,  have  erred  frequently  in  assuming  that 
the  history  of  Israel  could  be  interpreted  almost 
exclusively  from  within,  and  in  ignoring  altogether 
too  much  the  lines  which  connect  Israel  with  the 
rest  of  the  world.  Let  us  trust  that  the  investi- 
gators of  the  future  will  be  more  disposed  than  has 
hitherto  been  the  case  to  give  the  history  of  Israel 
its  place  in  the  history  of  the  world!  Of  course, 
with  our  slender  knowledge  of  the  primitive  Orient 
we  are  in  large  measure  thrown  back  upon  conjec- 
tures. Yet  this  cannot  justify  us  in  ignoring  alto- 
gether the  surroundings  in  which  Israel  lived,  and 
there  are  after  all  certain  things  which  we  may 
declare  with  tolerable  certainty. 


90  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 


BABYLONIAN    INFLUENCES. 

Babylonian  influence  is  evident  more  than  any 
other  in  the  primitive  legends.  We  can  demon- 
strate this  in  the  case  of  the  legend  of  the  Deluge, 
of  which  we  possess  the  Babylonian  version;  and 
we  have  strong  reasons  for  accepting  it  in  the  case 
of  the  story  of  creation,  which  agrees  with  the 
Babylonian  story  in  the  characteristic  point  of  the 
division  of  the  primeval  sea  into  two  portions;  also 
in  the  legend  of  Nimrod,  and  in  the  traditions  of 
the  patriarchs,  the  ten  patriarchs  of  the  race  as  given 
by  P  being  ultimately  the  same  as  the  ten  primitive 
kings  of  the  Babylonians.  The  legend  of  the 
Tower  of  Babel,  too,  deals  with  Babylonia  and  must 
have  its  origin  in  that  region.  The  Eranian  paral- 
lels to  the  legend  of  Paradise  show  that  this,  too, 
came  from  further  East,  but  whether  from  Babylonia 
specifically  is  an  open  question,  since  the  Babylo- 
nians located  Paradise  not  at  the  source  of  the 
streams,  so  far  as  we  know,  but  rather  at  their 
mouth.  We  have  besides  a  Buddhistic  parallel  to 
the  story  of  Sodom.  (Cp.  T.  Cassel,  Mischle  Sind- 
bad.) 

As  to  the  time  when  these  legends  entered  Israel 
the  opinions  of  investigators  are  divided;  to  us  it 
seems  probable  from  interior  evidence  that  these 
legends  wandering  from  race  to  race  reached  Canaan 
as  early  as  some  time  in  the  second  millennium  B.  C. 
and  were  adopted  by  Israel  just  as  it  was  assimilat- 
ing the  civilisation  of  Canaan.  We  know  from  the 
Tell-el-Amarna  correspondence  that  Babylonian 
influence  was  working  upon  Canaan  even  in  this 
early  period;    and  on  the  other  hand,  a  later  time, 


THE  LEGENDS  IN  ORAL   TRADITION.        91 

when    Israel's    self-consciousness    had     awakened, 
would  scarcely  have  accepted  these  foreign  myths. 

EGYPTIAN    AND    PHOENICIAN    INFLUENCES. 

Egyptian  influence  is  recognisable  in  the  romance 
of  Joseph,  which  has  its  scene  partly  in  Egypt  and 
very  likely  goes  back  to  Egyptian  legends.  This  is 
particularly  evident  in  the  legend  of  Joseph's 
agrarian  policy,  xlvii.  13  ff.  We  may  well  wonder 
that  we  find  so  few  Egyptian  elements  in  Genesis, 
but  so  far  as  we  can  see  the  same  observation  is  to  be 
made  for  the  civilisation  of  Israel  in  general:  Egypt 
was  already  a  decadent  nation  and  had  but  slight 
influence  upon  Canaan.  We  shall  find  also  Phoeni- 
cian and  Aramaic  elements  in  the  legends;  the 
second  is  proven  by  the  importance  of  the  city  of 
Haran  to  the  patriarchs. 

The  probable  home  of  the  Ishmael  legend  is 
Ishmael,  and  that  of  Lot  the  mountains  of  Moab, 
where  Lot's  cave  was  shown,  xix.  30.  The  Jacob- 
Esau  stories  and  the  Jacob-Laban  stories  were  orig- 
inally told  in  "Jacob";  the  Shem -Japhet  -  Canaan 
legend  in  "Shem,"  as  it  would  seem;  the  Abel-Cain 
legend  neither  in  Abel,  which  perished  according  to 
the  legend,  nor  in  Cain,  which  was  cursed  and 
exiled;  accordingly  in  some  unnamed  people. 

RELIGIOUS    LEGENDS    NOT    ISRAELITIC. 

The  legends  of  worship  in  Genesis  we  may  assume 
with  the  greatest  certainty  to  have  originated  in  the 
places  of  which  they  treat.  The  same  may  be  said 
of  other  legends  which  ascribe  names  to  definite 
places.  Accordingly  it  is  probable  that  most  of  the 
legends  of  the  patriarchs  were  known  before   Israel 


92  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

came  into  Canaan.  This  assumption  is  supported 
by  the  character  of  many  of  the  legends  of  Genesis: 
the  complaisance  and  peacefulness  of  the  figures  of 
the  patriarchs  are  by  no  means  Israelitish  charac- 
teristics. The  connexion  of  man  and  fruitland 
(Cp.  the  Commentary,  p.  5)  in  the  story  of  Paradise 
is  conceivable  only  among  a  people  of  peasants. 
According  to  the  Cain  and  Abel  legend  also,  the 
field  is  God's  property,  iv.  14. 

But  especially  the  religion  of  Genesis  hints  of  a 
non-lsraelitish  origin  for  most  of  the  legends:  two 
of  our  sources  (E  and  P)  avoid  calling  the  God  of 
the  patriarchs  "Jahveh,"  in  which  we  may  see  a  last 
relic  of  the  feeling  that  these  stories  really  have 
nothing  to  do  with  "Jahveh"  the  God  of  Israel,  as 
furthermore  the  book  of  Job,  which  also  treats  a 
foreign  theme,  does  not  use  the  name  "Jahveh." 
But  even  in  the  third  source  (J),  which  speaks  of 
"Jahveh,"  the  name  "Jahveh  Zebaoth"  is  not 
found.  On  a  few  occasions  we  are  able  to  catch  the 
name  of  the  pre-Jahvistic  God  of  the  legend;  we 
hear  of  "El  Lahai  Ro'i"  at  Lahai  Ro'i,  xvi.  30,  of 
"El  'Olam"  at  Beersheba,  xxi.  33  ff.,  of  "El 
Bethel"  at  Bethel,  xxxi.  13;  El  Shaddai  and  El 
'Eljon  are  probably  also  such  primitive  names.  In 
the  legend  of  Abraham  at  Hebron  there  are  assumed 
at  the  start  three  gods;  polytheism  is  also  to  be 
traced  in  the  legend  of  the  heavenly  ladder  at 
Bethel  and  in  the  fragment  of  the  Mahanaim 
legend,  xxxii.  2,  where  mention  is  made  of  many 
divine  beings. 

We  recognise  Israelitish  origin  with  perfect  cer- 
tainty only  in  those  legends  that  introduce  expressly 
Israelitish  names,  that  is  particularly  in  the  legends 


THE  LEGENDS  IN  ORAL  TRADITION.         93 

of  Dinah  (Simeon  and  Levi)  xxxiv,  Tamar  (Judah) 
xxxviii,  and  Reuben  xxxv.  22.  But  we  do  not 
mean  to  declare  by  this  that  other  narratives  may 
not  be  of  Israelitish  origin.  In  particular  the  con- 
siderable number  of  legends  which  have  their  scene 
in  Negeb  (southward  of  Judah)  may  very  likely  be 
of  Israelitish  origin.  But  Israelitish  tradition  flows 
unmixed,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  only  from  the  intro- 
duction of  the  story  of  Moses. 

The  general  view  of  the  legendary  traditions  of 
Israel  gives  us,  then,  so  far  as  we  are  able  to  make 
it  out,  the  following  main  features:  The  legends  of 
the  beginnings  in  the  main  are  Babylonian,  the 
legends  of  the  patriarchs  are  essentially  Canaanitish, 
and  after  these  come  the  specifically  Israelitish 
traditions.  This  picture  corresponds  to  the  history 
of  the  development  of  civilisation:  in  Canaan  the 
native  civilisation  grows  up  on  a  foundation  essen- 
tially Babylonian,  and  after  this  comes  the  Israel- 
itish national  life.  It  is  a  matter  of  course  that  the 
sequence  of  periods  in  the  themes  for  story-telling 
and  in  the  epochs  of  civilisation  should  correspond; 
thus  among  modern  peoples  the  children  make  the 
acquaintance  first  of  the  Israelitish  stories,  next  of 
the  Graeco-Roman,  and  finally  the  modern  subjects, 
quite  in  accordance  with  the  influences  in  the  his- 
tory of  our  civilisation. 

GREEK    PARALLELS. 

A  particularly  interesting  problem  is  offered  by 
the  correspondence  of  certain  legends  to  Greek  sub- 
jects; for  instance  the  story  of  the  three  men  who 
visit  Abraham  is  told  among  the  Greeks  by  Hyrieus 
at  Tanagra   (Ovid,  Fast.,  V.,  495  ff.);    the   story  of 


94        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

Potiphar's  wife  contains  the  same  fictional  motive 
as  that  of  Hippolytus  and  Phaedra  and  is  found  in 
other  forms;  there  are  also  Greek  parallels  for  the 
story  of  the  curse  upon  Reuben  (Homer,  Iliad,  IX., 
447  ff.)  and  for  the  story  of  the  quarrel  of  the 
brothers  Esau  and  Jacob  (Apollodor.,  Biblioth.,  II., 
2/1);  the  legend  of  Lot  at  Sodom  suggests  that  of 
Philemon  and  Baucis.  In  the  legends  of  the  begin- 
nings also  there  are  related  features:  the  declaration 
that  man  and  woman  were  originally  one  body 
(Plato,  Symp.,  p.  189  ff.),  and  the  myth  of  the 
Elysian  happiness  of  the  primeval  time  are  also 
familiar  to  the  Greeks.  The  solution  of  this  prob- 
lem will  surely  be  found  in  the  assumption  that  both 
these  currents  of  tradition  are  branches  of  one  great 
Oriental  stream. 

Accordingly  we  infer  that  the  legends  of  Genesis 
are  of  very  varied  origin,  which  is  altogether  con- 
firmed by  more  careful  examination.  For  the  nar- 
ratives themselves  are  far  from  consistent:  some 
conceive  of  the  patriarchs  as  peasants,  others  as 
shepherds,  but  never  as  city-dwellers;  some  have 
their  scene  in  Babylonia,  some  in  Egypt,  some  in 
Aram,  and  others  in  North  and  South  Canaan;  some 
assume  an  original  polytheism,  others  speak  of  the 
guardian  genius  (El)  of  the  place,  some  think  of 
God  as  the  severe  lord  of  mankind,  others  praise 
the  mercy  of  God,  and  so  on. 

THE    ADAPTATION    OF    THE    LEGENDS. 

Naturally  these  foreign  themes  were  vigorously 
adapted  in  Israel  to  the  nationality  and  the  religion 
of  the  people,  a  process  to  be  recognised  most 
clearly  in  the  case  of  the  Babylonian-Hebrew  legend 


THE  LEGENDS  IN  ORAL  TRADITION.        95 

of  the  Deluge.  Here  the  polytheism  has  disap- 
peared: the  many  gods  have  been  dropped  in  favor 
of  the  one  (the  myth  of  creation),  or  have  been 
reduced  to  servants  of  the  one  (the  legend  of 
Hebron);  the  local  divinities  have  been  identified 
with  Jahveh  and  their  names  regarded  as  epithets  of 
Jahveh  in  the  particular  locality  involved  (xvi.  13; 
xxi.  33;  xxxi.  13). 

The  amalgamation  of  these  legends  and  their 
infilling  with  the  spirit  of  a  higher  religion  is  one 
of  the  most  brilliant  achievements  of  the  people  of 
Israel.  But  quite  apart  from  the  religion,  in  this 
Israelitising  of  the  legends  it  is  very  certain  that  a 
quantity  of  changes  took  place  of  which  we  can 
survey  only  a  small  portion.  Foreign  personages 
were  displaced  by  native  ones:  as  for  instance  the 
Hebrew  Enoch  took  the  place  of  the  Babylonian 
magician  Enmeduranki,  while  the  more  familiar 
Noah  took  the  place  of  the  hero  in  the  Babylonian 
account  of  the  Deluge.  Thus  also  the  Egyptian 
stories  found  in  the  last  of  Genesis  were  transferred 
to  the  Israelite  figure  of  Joseph.  And  thus  in  many 
cases  the  stories  which  are  now  connected  with 
definite  personages  may  not  have  belonged  to 
them  originally.  Or  again,  native  personages 
were  associated  with  the  foreign  ones:  thus  Esau- 
Se'ir  was  identified  with  Edom,  and  Jacob  with 
Israel,  and  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  made  to  be 
ancestors  of  the  people  of  Israel.  Or  foreign 
legends  were  localised  in  the  places  of  Canaan: 
thus  the  story  of  the  three  visitors  of  Abraham, 
which  is  known  also  to  the  Greeks,  is  localised  at 
Hebron;  the  legend  of  the  vanished  cities,  which 
even   in   the   form   preserved   knows  nothing  of  the 


96        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

salt  lake,  beside  the  Dead  Sea.  And  in  the  process 
various  specifically  Israelitish  features  have  been 
introduced  into  the  legends,  for  instance,  the 
prophecies  that  Esau  (Edom)  would  sometime 
separate  from  Jacob  (Israel),  xxvii.  40;  that  Joseph 
would  receive  Shechem,  xlviii.  22;  that  Manasseh 
would  dwindle  as  compared  with  Ephraim.  In  the 
legend  of  Jacob  and  Laban  the  motive  of  the  bound- 
ary treaty  at  Gilead  is  a  later  interpolation;  a 
piece  about  the  preservation  of  Zoar  has  been  added 
to  the  legend  of  Sodom.  The  legends  of  worship 
which  were  originally  intended  to  explain  the  sanc- 
tity of  the  place,  were  transferred  to  Jahveh  and  to 
the  patriarch  Jared  and  received  the  new  point  that 
they  were  to  explain  why  Jared  had  the  right  to 
worship  Jahveh  at  this  place. 

MODE    OF    AMALGAMATION. 

Further  alterations  came  about  by  exchange  or 
combination  of  local  traditions.  We  can  imagine 
that  such  things  happened  very  frequently  in  connex- 
ion with  travel,  especially  perhaps  on  the  occasion  of 
the  great  pilgrimages  to  the  tribal  sanctuaries,  and 
by  means  of  the  class  of  travelling  story-tellers. 
Thus  the  legends  travelled  from  place  to  place  and 
are  told  in  our  present  form  of  the  tradition  regard- 
ing various  places.  The  story  of  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah  was  localised,  as  it  seems,  by  another 
tradition  at  Adma  and  Sebo'im  (cp.  my  Commen- 
tary, p.  195).  According  to  another  tradition  a 
similar  legend  was  told  in  connexion  with  Gibeah 
in  Benjamin  (Judges  xix).  The  rescue  of  Ishmael 
was  localised  both  in  Lahai  Roi  and  in  Beersheba 
(xxi.  14).     The  meeting  of  Jacob  and   Esau  on  the 


THE  LEGENDS  IN  ORAL  TRADITION.         97 

former's  return  was  located  at  Mahanaim  and  at 
Penuel  on  the  Jabbok  (in  Northeastern  Canaan), 
where  it  seems  originally  not  to  belong,  since  Esau 
is  supposed  to  be  located  in  Edom,  south  of  Canaan. 
The  names  of  the  patriarchs  are  given  in  connexion 
with  the  most  various  places,  all  claiming  to  have 
been  founded  by  them;  Abraham  particularly  in 
Hebron,  but  also  in  Beersheba  and  elsewhere;  Isaac 
not  only  in  Beersheba,  but  also  in  Mizpah  (xxxi. 
53) ;  Jacob  in  Penuel,  Bethel  and  Shechem.  In  which 
of  the  places  the  figures  were  originally  located  we 
are  unable  to  say,  nor  whether  Abraham  or  Isaac 
was  the  original  personage  in  the  legend  of  Gerar. 
These  transformations  are  too  old  to  be  traced  out 
in  detail.  Wellhausen's  conjecture  (Prolegomena, 
p.  323)  that  Abraham  is  probably  the  latest  person- 
age among  the  patriarchs,  is  untenable. 

Then  again,  various  legends  have  been  combined 
(see  pp.  45  and  56),  for  instance,  the  stories  of  Para- 
dise and  of  the  creation  as  told  by  J,  and  the  myth 
of  the  creation  and  of  the  Elysian  period  as  told 
by  P. 

Or  again,  various  different  personages  have  grown 
together:  thus  the  figure  of  Noah  in  Genesis  consists 
of  three  originally  different  personages,  the  builder 
of  the  ark,  the  vintager,  and  the  father  of  Shem, 
Ham  and  Japhet.  In  Cain  we  have  combined  the 
different  personages:  (1)  Cain,  the  son  of  the  first 
human  couple,  (2)  Cain,  the  brother  of  Abel,  (3) 
Cain,  the  founder  of  cities.  Jacob,  according  to 
the  legend  of  Penuel,  is  a  giant  who  wrestles  with 
God  himself;  according  to  the  Jacob-Esau  stories  he 
is  shrewd  but  cowardly,  thus  seeming  to  be  an 
entirely  different    person;     probably   the   Jacob   to 


98        THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

whom  God  reveals  himself  at  Bethel  is  still  a  differ- 
ent person. 

Incidentally  to  the  joining  together  of  the  legends 
the  pedigrees  of  the  patriarchs  were  established: 
thus  Abraham  became  the  father  of  Isaac,  and  he  in 
turn  of  Jacob;  thus  Ishmael  was  made  a  son  of 
Abraham  and  Lot  made  his  nephew,  and  so  on. 
And  the  reasons  for  this  are  not  at  all  clear.  How 
old  this  pedigree  may  be  we  cannot  tell.  The 
amalgamation  of  the  legends  is  a  process  which  cer- 
tainly was  under  way  long  before  Israel  was  in 
Canaan;  we  can  imagine  that  it  proceeded  with 
especial  rapidity  and  thoroughness  at  the  time  when 
Israel  was  again  gathering  itself  together  as  a  nation 
under  the  first  kings. 

FIDELITY    OF    TRANSMISSION. 

And  not  only  from  place  to  place,  but  also  from 
age  to  age,  do  our  legends  wander.  In  general  they 
are  simply  repeated,  and  often  with  what  is  to  us 
an  incredible  fidelity, — perhaps  only  half  understood 
or  grown  entirely  unintelligible,  and  yet  transmitted 
further!  How  faithfully  the  legends  have  been  told 
we  can  learn  by  comparing  the  different  variants  of 
the  same  story,  which,  in  spite  of  more  or  less 
deviation,  agree  nevertheless  in  the  general  plan 
and  often  even  in  the  very  words.  Compare,  for 
instance,  the  two  variants  of  the  legend  of  Rebeccah. 

And  yet  even  these  faithfully  told  legends  are 
subject  to  the  universal  law  of  change.  When  a 
new  generation  has  come,  when  the  outward  condi- 
tions have  changed  or  the  thoughts  of  men  have 
altered,  whether  it  be  in  religion  or  ethical  ideals  or 
aesthetic    taste,    the    popular    legend    cannot    per- 


THE  LEGENDS  IN  ORAL  TRADITION.         99 

manently  remain  the  same.  Slowly  and  hesitat- 
ingly, always  at  a  certain  distance  behind,  the 
legends  follow  the  general  changes  in  conditions, 
some  more,  others  less.  And  here,  consequently, 
the  legends  furnish  us  a  very  important  basis  for 
judging  of  changes  in  the  people;  a  whole  history 
of  the  religious,  ethical  and  aesthetic  ideas  of 
ancient  Israel  can  be  derived  from  Genesis. 

VALUE    OF    THE    VARIANTS. 

If  any  one  proposes  to  study  this  history  he  will 
do  well  to  begin  with  the  variants.  It  is  the  char- 
acteristic of  legend  as  well  as  of  oral  tradition  that 
it  exists  in  the  form  of  variants.  Each  one,  how- 
ever faithful  it  may  be,  and  especially  every  partic- 
ular group  and  every  new  age,  tells  somewhat 
differently  the  story  transmitted  to  it.  The  most 
important  variants  in  Genesis  are  the  two  stories  of 
Ishmael  (xvi. ;  xxi.  8  ff.),  and  next  the  legend  of 
the  danger  to  the  patriarch's  wife,  which  is  handed 
down  to  us  in  three  versions  (xii.  13  ff . ;  xx.  26), 
and  then  the  associated  legend  of  the  treaty  at 
Beersheba,  likewise  in  three  versions.  In  the  case 
of  these  stories  the  variants  are  told  with  almost 
entire  independence  of  one  another. 

To  these  are  to  be  added  the  many  cases  in  which 
the  stories  are  transmitted  to  us  in  the  variants  of  J 
and  E  (or  of  the  various  hands  in  J)  worked  over  by 
the  hand  of  an  editor;  the  chief  illustrations  of  this 
method  being  the  stories  of  Jacob  and  of  Joseph. 
Sometimes,  furthermore,  variants  of  portions  of 
Genesis  are  transmitted  to  us  in  other  Biblical 
books:  thus  the  idyllic  account  of  the  way  in  which 
Jacob  became  acquainted  with  Rachel  at  the  foun- 


100  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

tain  is  told  also  of  Moses  and  Zipporah;  the  renun- 
ciation of  the  old  gods  under  the  oak  at  Shechem  is 
told  of  Jacob  and  also  of  Joshua  (Joshua  xxiv.);  the 
interpretation  of  the  dream  of  the  foreign  king  is 
told  of  both  Joseph  and  Daniel. 

Let  the  investigator  make  his  first  observations 
on  these  twice-told  tales;  when  he  has  thus  acquired 
the  keen  eye  and  found  certain  lines  of  develop- 
ment, then  let  him  compare  also  the  legends  which 
are  told  but  once.  Then  he  will  begin  to  see  how 
extraordinarily  varied  these  legends  are;  among 
them  are  the  coarsest  and  the  most  delicate,  the 
most  offensive  and  the  most  noble,  those  showing  a 
naive,  polytheistic  religion,  and  others  in  which  is 
expressed  the  most  ideal  form  of  faith. 

JUDGMENT    OF    INDIVIDUAL    NARRATIVES. 

Moreover,  the  history  of  the  legends  is  to  be 
derived  from  the  individual  narratives  themselves. 
If  we  look  sharply  we  shall  see  revisions  in  the  taste 
of  a  later  time,  slight  or  extensive  additions  bring- 
ing in  a  thought  which  was  foreign  to  the  old  nar- 
rator; in  certain  rare  cases  we  may  even  assume  that 
a  whole  story  has  been  added  to  the  tradition  (chap, 
xv.);  and  such  additions  are  recognised  by  the  fact 
that  they  are  out  of  place  in  an  otherwise  harmo- 
nious story,  and  usually  also  by  .the  fact  that  they  are 
relatively  unconcrete:  the  art  of  story-telling,  which 
in  olden  times  was  in  such  high  perfection,  degen- 
erated in  later  times,  and  the  latest,  in  particular, 
care  more  for  the  thought  than  for  the  narrative. 
Hence  such  additions  usually  contain  speeches. 
Sometimes  also  short  narrative  notes  are  added  to 
the  legend  cycles,  as  for  instance,  we  are  told  briefly 


THE  LEGENDS  IN  ORAL  TRADITION.      101 

of  Jacob  that  he  bought  a  field  in  Shechem  (xxxiii. 
18-20),  or  that  Deborah  died  and  was  buried  at 
Bethel  (xxxv.  8),  and  so  on. 

But  with  these  faithful  narrators  more  significant 
than  the  additions  are  certainly  the  omissions  which 
are  intended  to  remove  features  that  have  become 
objectionable;  for  we  find  gaps  in  the  narratives  at 
every  step.  Indeed,  to  those  of  a  later  time  often 
so  much  had  become  objectionable  or  had  lost  its 
interest  that  some  legends  have  become  mere  torsos: 
such  is  the  case  with  the  marriages  with  angels,  with 
the  story  of  Reuben  (xxxv.  2i-22a),  of  Mahanaim 
(xxxiii.  2  ff.).  In  other  cases  only  the  names  of  the 
figures  of  the  legend  have  come  down  to  us  without 
their  legends:  thus  of  the  patriarchs  Nahor,  Iscah, 
Milcah  (xi.  29),  Phichol,  Ahuzzath  (xxvi.  26);  from 
the  legend  of  the  giant  Nimrod  we  have  only  the 
proverbial  phrase,  "like  Nimrod,  a  mighty  hunter 
before  the  Lord"  (x.  9).  By  other  instances  we  can 
see  that  the  stories,  or  particular  portions  of  them, 
have  lost  their  connexion  and  were  accordingly  no 
longer  rightly  understood:  the  narrators  do  not 
know  why  Noah's  dove  brought  precisely  an  olive 
leaf  (viii.  11),  why  Judah  was  afraid  to  give  to 
Tamar  his  youngest  son  also  (xxxviii.  11),  why 
Isaac  had  but  one  blessing  to  give'  (xxvii.  36),  and 
why  he  had  to  partake  of  good  things  before  the 
blessing  (xxvii.  4),  why  it  was  originally  told  that 
Jacob  limped  at  Penuel  (xxxii.  32),  and  so  forth. 

Hence  there  is  spread  over  many  legends  some- 
thing like  a  blue  haze  which  veils  the  colors  of  the 
landscape:  we  often  have  a  feeling  that  we  indeed 
are  still  able  to  recall  the  moods  of  the  ancient 
legends,  but  that  the  last  narrators  had  ceased  to 


102  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

have  a  true  appreciation  of  those  moods.  We  must 
pursue  all  these  observations,  find  the  reasons  that 
led  to  the  transformations,  and  thus  describe  the 
inner  history  of  the  legends.  But  here  we  give  only 
a  short  sketch. 

CHANGES    WROUGHT    BY  TIME  IN    THE    LEGENDS. 

The  most  important  element  in  the  history  of 
the  legends  is  probably  this:  in  older  times  as  the 
outward  circumstances  in  which  they  arose  were 
shifted,  the  legends  also  incurred  certain  alter- 
ations. Thus  it  was  forgotten  who  the  king  of 
Gerar  really  was  (xx.  26),  and  the  king  of  Egypt 
was  put  in  instead  (xii.  10  ff.).  Incidentally  it 
seems,  according  to  Winckler,  that  a  confusion 
arose  between  Mizraim  (Egypt)  and  the  North 
Arabian  tribe  of  the  Muzrim,  to  whom  Gerar 
belonged;  and  Hagar  also  has  been  changed  from  a 
Muzritish  Arabian  woman  to  a  woman  of  Mizraim, 
that  is,  an  Egyptian.  Or,  at  a  time  when  the  Philis- 
tines had  possession  of  Gerar  this  people  also  was 
brought  into  the  legend  of  Gerar,  whereas  the  oldest 
version  of  the  story  (xxi.  22  ff.,  26)  knows  as  yet 
nothing  of  this  fact.  The  figure  of  Hagar,  once  the 
type  of  a  tempestuous  Bedouin  woman  (xvi.)  has 
lost  this  characteristic  color  in  the  later  tradition, 
which  was  not  familiar  with  the  desert.  The  stories 
of  Jacob's  breeding  devices  while  in  Laban's  employ, 
once  the  delight  of  the  professional  hearers  and 
therefore  quite  detailed,  were  later  much  abbreviated 
for  hearers  or  readers  who  had  no  interest  in  the 
subject.  (See  Commentary,  p.  307.)  Of  the  theories 
regarding  the  gradual  origin  of  human  arts  and 
trades  (iv.    17  ff.)    only  fragments   have  been   pre- 


THE  LEGENDS  IN  ORAL  TRADITION.      103 

served.  Very  often  the  characteristic  elements  of 
the  legend,  when  far  from  the  places  where  they 
were  understood,  grew  colorless  or  were  replaced 
by  others.  This  is  particularly  clear  in  the  legends 
of  sanctuaries,  of  which  we  shall  speak  later.  Still 
other  legends  were  probably  entirely  forgotten 
because  the  interest  in  them  had  died  out.  And  in 
addition  to  this,  the  imagination,  which  is  mightily 
stirred  by  such  narratives,  develops  them  almost 
involuntarily.  We  can  here  and  there  recognise 
such  continuations  and  developments  due  to  the 
free  play  of  the  imagination. 

LIGHT  ON    THE  HISTORY  OF  RELIGION. 

The  most  important  feature  of  this  study  is  the 
history  of  religion.  In  very  many  legends  of  Gen- 
esis a  monotheistic  tendency  is  to  be  observed, 
an  avoidance  of  mythology  to  which  we  have  re- 
ferred (see  pp.  15  and  95).  This  feeling  contin- 
ued to  grow  in  Israel  and  was  the  cause  for  the 
fading  out  of  a  number  of  legends.  In  the  case 
of  the  myth  of  creation,  of  which  we  have  older 
variants  of  a  different  attitude,  the  history  of  this 
elimination  of  the  mythological  elements  is  still  to 
be  observed.  The  narrative  of  the  Deluge,  too,  has 
lost  much  of  its  color  in  the  oldest  Hebrew  account 
(that  of  J),  and  doubtless  from  this  very  reason. 
Others,  like  the  legend  of  the  marriage  with  angels 
(vi.  1-4)  and  of  Mahanaim  (xxxv.  2\-22a),  which 
were  once  in  existence  in  older  Israelitish  tradition, 
are  in  their  present  form  entirely  mutilated.  Of 
the  Nephilim,  the  Hebrew  "Titans,"  which  are 
said  to  have  been  very  famous  once  (vi.  4),  we  have 
nothing  but  the  name. 


104  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

MODIFICATION  OF  THE  THEOPHANY. 

Furthermore,  we  may  observe  how  naively  the 
older  legends  speak  of  Jahveh's  appearance  on 
earth,  but  how  the  later  time  objected  to  this  and 
made  the  revelation  of  the  divinity  even  more 
intangible.  While  according  to  the  oldest  belief 
the  divinity  himself  walked  without  reserve  among 
men — as  in  the  present  form  of  the  legends  of 
Paradise  and  of  the  Deluge— the  later  time  decked 
the  theophany  in  the  veil  of  mystery:  God  ap- 
peared only  in  the  darkness  of  night  and  vanished 
with  the  rising  of  the  sun  (xix.);  or  he  appeared  to 
men  without  their  recognising  him  (xviii.),  and  in 
this  way  the  divinity,  though  revealing  himself, 
nevertheless  did  not  wholly  unveil  his  nature.  Still 
later  versions  put  some  subordinate  divine  being  in 
place  of  the  divinity  himself,  J  calling  it  "the  angel 
of  Jahveh,"  and  E  "the  angel  of  God,"  though  this 
device  was  not  observed  consistently;  passages 
enough  have  been  left  which  presuppose  the  appear- 
ance of  Jahveh  himself,  the  older  version  peeping 
forth  from  behind  the  newer  one. 

This  same  point  of  view  has  led  to  the  change  of 
God's  appearance  on  earth  to  the  apparition  in  a 
dream,  or  to  the  declaration  that  the  angel  remained 
in  heaven  and  spoke  to  the  patriarch  from  there: 
the  mystery  of  the  dream-life  left  a  veil  for  the 
divinity  who  revealed  himself,  or  in  the  other  case 
he  was  not  seen  at  all,  but  only  heard.  The  last 
stage  in  this  development  is  represented  by  those 
legends  in  which  the  divinity  no  longer  appears  at 
a  definite  point  in  the  story,  but  dominates  the 
whole  from  the  ultimate  hidden  background,  as  in 
the  stories  of  Rebeccah  and  of  Joseph. 


THE  LEGENDS  IN  ORAL  TRADITION.       106 

Thus  we  progress  in  Genesis  by  many  stages  from 
crass  mythology  to  a  belief  in  providence  which 
seems  to  us  altogether  modern.  It  is  a  marvel 
indeed  that  the  legend  of  Penuel  (xxxii.  25  ff.)  is 
transmitted  to  us  in  such  primitive  form;  in  this 
the  device  has  been  to  leave  it  undefined  who  the 
God  really  was  that  attacked  Jacob. 

THE  DIVINITY  AND  THE  SANCTUARY. 

We  recognise  in  this  process  of  refining  the 
nature  of  the  theophany  at  the  same  time  the  dis- 
sociation of  the  divinity  from  the  sanctuaries:  the 
oldest  belief  that  the  God  belonged  to  this  partic- 
ular place  and  could  operate  nowhere  else,  is  not 
clearly  found  in  a  single  legend  of  Genesis.  On 
the  contrary,  the  opinion  of  the  legend  is  that  the 
places  are  sacred  to  the  divinity  because  he  had 
once  in  primitive  time  appeared  here  to  some  an- 
cestor. Even  the  very  old  legend  of  Hebron,  which 
actually  has  God  appear  and  eat,  does  not  allege 
that  the  divinity  came  forth  out  of  the  tree.  In 
the  story  of  Hagar's  flight,  the  mother  of  Ishmael 
meets  the  divinity  at  the  well,  but  no  explanation 
is  given  as  to  what  connexion  he  had  with  the  well. 
The  great  age  of  this  whole  point  of  view  is  to  be 
gathered  from  the  story  of  Bethel:  the  oldest  reli- 
gion had  thought  to  find  the  God  of  the  place  in  the 
stone  itself,  as  the  name  of  the  sacred  stone,  beth-cl, 
or  "house  of  God,"  shows;  but  those  of  the  later 
age  believed  that  God  dwelt  high  above  Bethel,  in 
heaven,  and  only  a  ladder  preserved  the  connexion 
between  the  real  dwelling  of  God  and  its  symbol. 
This  belief  in  the  heavenly  dwelling  of  the  divinity 
rested,    as   the   legend   shows,    upon   a  polytheistic 


106  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

basis:  Jacob  sees  many  divine  beings  going  up  and 
down  the  ladder. 

Many  legends  of  sanctuaries  are  transmitted  to 
us  in  very  faded  form:  from  the  story  of  Ishmael 
(in  both  versions)  and  likewise  from  the  legends  of 
Hebron  (xviii.),  Mahanaim  (xxxii.  2  f.),  Penuel 
(xxxii.  25  ff.)  and  others,  we  no  longer  gather  that 
the  scenes  of  the  stories  are  places  of  worship. 
The  legend  of  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  originally  a 
legend  of  worship,  has  lost  all  its  aetiological  pur- 
pose in  the  version  transmitted  to  us  and  remains 
nothing  but  a  character  sketch.  In  the  legend  of 
Penuel,  too,  the  aetiological  element  is  now  forgot- 
ten. The  anointing  of  the  stone  at  Bethel,  once  a 
sacrificial  ceremony,  seems  in  its  transmitted  form 
to  be  no  more  than  a  sort  of  rite  of  consecration. 
The  Massebha,  once  sacred  stones,  symbols  of  the 
divinity,  are  finally  mere  memorial  or  tomb  stones. 
The  cave  of  Machpelah,  once  a  place  of  worship,  is 
nothing  but  the  burial-place  of  the  patriarchs  in  our 
form  of  the  narrative.     And  so  on. 

The  fading  out  of  these  legends  of  worship  shows 
plainly  that  these  stories  are  not  preserved  for  us 
in  the  form  in  which  they  were  probably  told  orig- 
inally on  the  spot  for  the  purpose  of  establishing 
its  sanctity,  but  as  they  circulated  among  the  people 
in  later  times  and  far  from  the  places  concerned. 
At  the  same  time  we  see  from  this  colorless  charac- 
ter of  the  legends  concerning  the  popular  sanctuaries 
that  the  latter  had  ceased  to  occupy  the  foreground 
of  religious  interest  with  the  people,  or  at  least  with 
certain  groups  of  the  people.  The  bond  between 
religion  and  the  sanctuaries  was  already  loosened 
when  the  passionate  polemic  of  the  prophets  severed 


THE  LEGENDS  IN  ORAL  TRADITION.       107 

it.  How  else  could  the  people  of  Judah  have 
accepted  the  "Deuteronomian  Reformation,"  which 
destroyed  these  places  with  the  exception  of  the 
royal  temple  at  Jerusalem!  (2  Kings  xxiii.). 

god's  relation  to  man. 

Genesis  furnishes  the  most  varied  utterances  con- 
cerning the  relation  of  the  divinity  to  mankind.  In 
the  oldest  legends  we  hear  how  God  holds  men  in 
check,  how  he  guards  and  favors  certain  individuals 
in  accordance  with  his  sovereign  pleasure,  and  how 
he  glorifies  and  aggrandises  his  people  above  all 
others.  In  certain  of  the  oldest  legends  God's 
action  in  such  cases  seems  not  to  involve  at  all  any  (/  ) 
thought  qf_the  moral  or  religious  attitude_of  men: 
God  reveals  himself  to  Jacob  at  Bethel  simply 
because  Jacob  happens  to  come  to  Bethel;  similarly 
at  Penuel  the  divinity  assails  Jacob  without  any 
evident  reason;  God  is  pleased  with  Abel's  offering 
simply  because  he  loves  Abel  the  shepherd;  he  pro- 
tects Abraham  in  Egypt  and  gives  a  fortunate  out- 
come to  the  patriarch's  deception;  in  any  conflict 
of  the  patriarch  with  third  parties  God  takes  the 
part  of  his  favorite  even  when  the  latter  is  plainly 
in  the  wrong  as  in  the  case  of  Abraham  in  dealing 
with  Abimelech  (xx.  7),  or  when  he  has  indulged 
in  very  questionable  practises,  as  in  the  case  of 
Jacob  with  Laban,  and  so  on. 

But  alongside  these  there  are  other  legends  upon 
a  higher  plane,  according  to  which  God  makes  his 
favor  to  depend  uponFITe  righteousness  of  men:  he 
destroys  sinful  Sodom,  but  saves  Lot  because  of  his 
hospitableness;  he  destroys  the  disobliging  Onan, 
and  exiles  Cain  because  of  his  fratricide;  Joseph  is 


(J) 


108  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

helped  by  him  because  he  has  deserved  assistance 
by  his  chastity  and  his  magnanimity;  to  Abraham 
he  gives  a  son  because  of  his  kindness  to  strangers. 
These  legends  all  belong,  taken  absolutely,  to  a 
later  time  which  has  a  finer  ethical  sense,  yet  they 
are  all  primitive  in  Israel.  The  belief  that  God 
looks  with  approval  upon  the  just  and  rewards  the 
wicked  according  to  his  sin  is  certainly  familiar  to 
the  religion  of  Israel  from  the  beginning  (cp.  I  Sam. 
xxiv.  20;  2  Sam.  iii.  39).  From  a  broader  point  of 
view  we  may  include  here  another  group  of  legends 
which  tell  how  God  has  compassion  on  the  outcast 
and  despairing;  a  particularly  affecting  instance  of 
this  is  the  legend  of  the  exile  of  Hagar  (xxi.  8  ff.). 
A  third  variety    of   legend   emphasises   strongly 

what   it is   that   wins  God's, approval _to_witt  faith, 

ohpHiVnrp,  invincible,  trusty — these  God  imputes  as 
righteousness.  At  God's  command  Noah  built  a 
ship  upon  dry  land;  following  God's  word  Abraham 
left  his  secure  home  and  migrated  to  alien  lands, 
trusting  in  God's  promise  that  he  should  become  a 
nation  despite  the  fact  that  he  had  not  even  a  son 
as  yet.  Thus  they  won  the  favor  of  God.  The 
legend  of  the  suit  for  the  hand  of  Rebeccah  also 
shows  how  such  steadfast  trust  in  God  is  rewarded. 
In  the  legend  of  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac  we  have  a 
wonderful  character  sketch  showing  how  the  man  of 
true  piety  submits  to  even  the  hardest  and  most  ter- 
rible trials  if  God  so  commands.  The  famous  prayer 
of  Jacob,  xxxii.  10-13,  portrays  the  humble  grati- 
tude of  the  pious  man  who  confesses  himself  to  be 
unworthy  of  the  divine  favor.  The  narratives  and 
pieces  which  speak  thus  of  divine  favor  mark  the 
climax  of  high   religious  feeling  in  Genesis;  it   is 


THE  LEGENDS  IN  ORAL  TRADITION.       109 

these  especially  which  give  value  to  Genesis  even 
for  the  piety  of  the  present  day.  We  see  in  them 
a  comparatively  late  development.  This  conclusion 
is  supported  by  other  reasons  in  the  case  of  most  of 
them:  the  Babylonian  legend  of  the  Deluge,  for 
instance,  knows  nothing  of  the  trial  of  the  hero's 
faith;  Jacob's  prayer  is  quite  secondary  in  its  con- 
nexion, and  what  a  contrast  this  prayer  and  its  deep 
feeling  makes  with  the  remaining  conduct  of  the 
eel-like  Jacob!  What  a  difference  between  it  and 
the  legend  which  stands  beside  it,  Jacob's  wrestling 
with  the  divinity!  It  is  to  be  noted  also  how 
peculiarly  inconcrete  the  story  of  Abraham's  exodus 
is;  while  the  narrative  of  the  covenant,  chapter  xv., 
is  perhaps  a  later  composition  without  any  basis 
of  tradition! 

NOT  MERELY  A  TRIBAL  GOD. 

Thus  we  can  discern  here  a  series  of  thoughts 
about  God  leading  from  the  crudest  up  to  the  high- 
est. But  in  any  case  these  legends  teach  that  it  is 
an  error  to  think  that  ancient  Israel  conceived  only 
of  a  relation  between  God  and  Israel;  on  the  con- 
trary, it  is  everywhere  a  matter  of  the  relation  of 
God  to  individual  men.  It  is  true  that  these  per- 
sons are  in  part  race  types,  but  the  legend  looks 
upon  them  as  persons  and  depicts  God's  relation  to 
them  in  large  measure  just  in  the  way  in  which  the 
people  of  that  time  believed  that  God  dealt  with 
individuals.  We  should  deprive  many  of  these 
narratives  of  their  whole  charm  if  we  failed  to 
recognise  this  fact:  the  reason  the  legend  of  Hebron 
was  heard  so  gladly  by  ancient  listeners  is  that  it 
tells  how  God  rewards  hospitality  (thine  and  mine 


110  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

also!);  and  the  story  of  how  God  hears  the  voice  of 
the  weeping  boy  Ishmael  in  the  wilderness  is  touch- 
ing because  it  shows  God  having  compassion  on 
a  child:  this  God  will  hear  the  cry  of  our  children 
also! 

RELIGIOUS  AND  PROFANE  MOTIVES  MINGLED. 

Another  line  of  development  is  seen  in  the  fact 
that  the  elder  stories  have  a  naive  way  of  mingling 
profane  and  religious  motives,  and  clearly  without 
taking  any  offence  at  it:  thus  the  legend  of  Abra- 
ham in  Egypt  celebrates  the  shrewdness  of  the 
patriarch,  the  beauty  of  his  wife  and  the  steadfast- 
ness of  God.  The  legend  of  the  Deluge  praises  not 
only  the  piety,  but  also  the  shrewdness,  of  Noah 
(in  the  story  of  his  sending  out  the  birds);  the 
legend  of  the  flight  of  Hagar  (xvi.)  gives  quite  a 
realistic  picture  of  the  condition  of  affairs  in  Abra- 
ham's household  and  then  tells  of  God's  assistance. 
These  legends  come,  therefore,  from  a  time  when 
profane  and  sacred  matters  were  still  frankly  united, 
when  the  men  of  Israel  fought  at  the  same  time  for 
God  and  the  popular  hero  ("a  sword  for  Jahveh  and 
Gideon!"  Judges  vii.  20),  when  lively  humor  was 
not  inconsistent  with  piety,  as,  for  instance,  the 
merry  butcher  Samson  who  is  at  the  same  time 
God's  ?iazir  (devotee),  or  the  humor  of  the  legend 
of  Abraham  in  Egypt.  Now  we  see  by  the  variants 
especially  of  this  last  legend  that  later  times  no 
longer  tolerated  this  mingling  of  profane  and  sacred 
motives,  or  at  least  that  it  offended  by  the  attempt 
to  glorify  at  the  same  time  God  and  profane  quali- 
ties of  men.  Accordingly  this  later  time  con- 
structed   stories    which   are    specifically   "sacred," 


THE  LEGENDS  IN  ORAL  TRADITION.      Ill 

that  is,  which  deal  only  with  God  and  piety,  and  in 
which  profane  interests  are  relegated  to  the  back- 
ground. Such  legends  are  those  of  Abraham's 
exodus,  of  the  covenant,  of  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac, 
and  so  on.  Here  the  formerly  popular  saga  is  on 
the  point  of  becoming  "legend,"  that  is,  a  char- 
acteristically "sacred"  or  "priestly"  narrative. 
Whether  this  phenomenon  was  connected  with  the 
fact  that  the  legends  were  at  that  time  making  their 
way  into  certain  definite  "sacred"  or  "priestly" 
circles,  we  are  unable  to  say. 

The  earlier  times  knew  also  legends  of  the  patri- 
archs which  were  altogether  of  profane  character, 
such  as  the  legend  of  the  separation  of  Abraham 
and  Lot,  or  that  of  Jacob  and  Laban.  In  later 
tradition  religious  elements  made  their  way  into 
even  these  legends  and  gave  them  a  religious  color- 
ing. For  instance,  objection  was  taken  to  the 
notion  that  Canaan  belonged  to  Abraham  simply 
because  Lot  did  not  choose  it,  and  an  addition  sup- 
plied to  the  effect  that  God  himself  after  Lot's  with- 
drawal personally  promised  the  land  to  Abraham 
(xiii.  14-17).  Similarly,  later  narrators  hesitated  to 
say  that  Jacob  had  run  away  from  Laban  and 
accordingly  interpolated  the  explanation  that  God 
had  revealed  the  plan  to  him  (xxxi.  3). 

ETHICAL  NOTIONS  IN  THE  LEGENDS. 

Furthermore,  a  whole  history  of  ethics  can  be  con- 
structed from  these  legends.  Many  of  the  legends 
of  the  patriarchs  are  filled  with  the  pure  enjoyment 
of  the  characters  of  the  patriarchs.  Consequently 
many  things   in    these   characters   which  are   to    us 


112  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

offensive  caused  no  hesitation  in  the  time  which 
first  told  the  stories,  but  were,  on  the  contrary,  a 
source  of  pleasure  or  of  inspiration.  The  people  of 
old  took  pleasure  in  Benjamin's  career  of  plunder 
(xlix.  29),  in  Hagar's  defiant  spirit  (xvi.)  and  in 
the  courage  of  Tamar  and  the  daughters  of  Lot,  who 
took  seed  of  a  man  where  they  could  find  it,  and 
further  in  the  shrewd  deceit  of  Abraham  in  Egypt, 
in  Joseph's  cunning  when  he  introduced  his  broth- 
ers to  his  prince  as  shepherds  (xlvii.  1  f.),  in 
Rachel's  trick  by  which  she  deceived  her  father  so 
perfectly  (xxxi.  34),  and  especially  in  the  wiles  and 
schemes  of  the  arch-rogue  Jacob.  It  is  impossible 
to  ignore  the  great  role  played  by  deceit  and  cun- 
ning in  these  legends  of  the  patriarchs,  and  the 
amusement  the  people  of  old  got  out  of  it,  and  the 
character  which  they  thus  reveal  to  us.  Then  we 
see  from  many  examples  how  the  later  tradition 
took  offence  at  these  stories,  re-interpreted  them  or 
remodeled  them  and  tried  to  eliminate  the  ques- 
tionable features  as  far  as  this  was  possible.  This 
is  most  evident  in  the  variants  of  the  legend  of  the 
danger  of  Sarah:  here  the  later  narrators  have 
remodeled  the  whole  story,  which  plainly  appeared 
highly  questionable  to  them,  changing,  for  instance, 
Abraham's  lie  into  a  mental  reservation  (xx.  12), 
the  disgraceful  presents  which  the  patriarch  receives 
for  his  wife  into  a  testimonial  of  good  repute  (xx. 
16),  and  even  finally  deriving  Abraham's  wealth 
from  the  blessing  of  God  (xxvi.  12);  similarly,  the 
deportation  of  Abraham  (xii.  20)  has  been  changed 
into  its  opposite  (xx.   15),  and  so  on. 

The    defiant    Hagar   of    chapter    xvi.     has    been 
changed   into  a  patient  and  unfortunate  woman,  in 


THE  LEGENDS  IN  ORAL  TRADITION.      113 

order  that  no  offence  might  be  taken  with  God's 
compassion  upon  her  (xxi.  8  ff.);  the  attempt  has 
been  made  to  explain  Abraham's  treatment  of 
Hagar  by  adding  that  God  had  commanded  him  to 
put  her  away  (xxi.  11).  Especial  pains  has  been 
taken  to  clear  Jacob  of  the  charge  of  dishonesty  in 
his  relations  with  Laban:  in  several  long  speeches 
the  narrator  undertakes  the  demonstration  that 
there  is  no  shadow  upon  Jacob;  Jacob's  wives  and 
finally  Laban  himself  are  obliged  to  recognise  his 
uprightness  (xxxi.  4  ff. ;  36  ff.).  Here  too  the  resort 
is,  to  ascribe  to  the  authority  of  God  that  which 
seems  questionable  to  men:  God  always  caused  the 
herds  to  bring  forth  in  Jacob's  interest  (xxxi.  7), 
and  God  himself  revealed  to  Jacob  the  color  of  the 
newborn  for  the  coming  year  (xxxi.  10  ff.).  With 
somewhat  less  energy  the  narrators  have  taken  hold 
of  the  story  of  Tamar;  yet  here  too  they  have  done 
their  best  to  wash  Judah  white:  Judah,  they  urge, 
did  not  go  to  Timnath  until  his  wife  was  dead. 
And  a  similar  endeavor  has  been  made  to  give  at 
least  for  Lot  himself  a  somewhat  more  decent  shape 
to  the  story  of  Lot's  daughters,  which  was  very 
offensive  to  those  of  the  later  age:  they  say  that 
Lot  was  deceived  by  his  daughters. 

THE    PATRIARCHS    NOT    SAINTS. 

The  olden  time  undoubtedly  took  delight  in  the 
patriarchs;  it  did  not  consider  them  saints,  but  told 
of  them  quite  frankly  all  sorts  of  things  that  were 
far  from  ideal.  Some  of  the  old  stories  are  in  this 
respect  exceedingly  true  to  nature:  they  portray 
the  fathers   as  types   of  the   Israelitish   nationality 


114  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

just  such  as  individual  men  in  Israel  are.  Thus  the 
story  of  the  flight  of  Hagar  (xvi.)  sketches  the 
people  in  Abraham's  household:  Sarah  as  the  jeal- 
ous wife,  Hagar  as  the  defiant  slave,  and  Abraham 
as  the  peace-loving  husband.  The  later  time  with 
its  "sacred"  or  "priestly"  feeling  could  not  toler- 
ate such  things.  On  the  contrary,  this  age  always 
saw  in  the  patriarchs  models  of  piety,  and  of  that 
intense  and  tender  piety  which  belonged  to  this 
later  age.  Thus  there  has  entered  into  the  portraits 
of  the  patriarchs  a  peculiar  dissonance:  the  very 
Abraham  who  thrust  his  son  Ishmael  into  the  wil- 
derness (xxi.  14),  who  does  not  hesitate  to  turn 
Sarah  over  to  the  foreign  king  and  even  to  accept 
presents  for  her  (xii.  16),  we  are  asked  to  regard 
as  the  same  who  is  the  lofty  model  of  faith  for  all 
ages!  And  the  cunning  Jacob  is  the  same  who 
speaks  the  wonderful  prayer  of  gratitude!  We 
resolve  this  dissonance  and  free  these  legends  from 
the  unpleasant  suspicion  of  untruthfulness  by  recog- 
nising that  the  different  tones  are  the  product  of 
different  periods. 

The  earlier  time  did  not  hesitate  to  recognise 
here  and  there  the  rights  of  aliens  when  brought 
into  conflict  with  the  patriarchs:  for  instance, 
Pharaoh's  right  as  opposed  to  Abraham's  (xii.  18 
f.),  and  Esau's  as  opposed  to  Jacob's  (xxvii.  36); 
indeed  some  of  the  patriarchs  have  been  simply 
abandoned:  Simeon,  Levi  and  Reuben  were  cursed 
by  their  great-grandfather  (xlix.  3-7)!  Israelitish 
patriotism  was  at  that  time  so  sound  that  it  tolerated 
such  views.  But  the  later  times,  with  their  one- 
sided, excessive  reverence  for  "the  people  of  God," 
could   not  endure  the  thought  that  the  patriarchs 


THE  LEGENDS  IN  ORAL  TRADITION.       115 

had  ever  been  wrong  or  done  wrong.  Thus  we  see 
how  one  of  the  narrators  takes  pains  to  show  that 
Abraham  was  not  altogether  in  the  wrong  in  his 
relations  with  Abimelech  (in  the  speech,  xxi.  1 1-13). 
From  the  same  motive,  in  order  to  avoid  saying 
anything  bad  about  the  patriarchs,  only  a  fragment 
of  the  story  of  the  curse  of  Reuben  has  been  trans- 
mitted (xxxv.  21-22.2),  and  the  story  of  Simeon  and 
Levi  has  been  cast  into  several  forms  (xxxiv.):  first 
excuses  for  the  brothers  were  sought — they  were 
defending  the  honor  of  their  sister(J) — and  finally 
they  were  even  justified  and  their  betrayal  of 
Shechem  represented  as  quite  the  natural  thing. 
Here,  too,  God  is  finally  made  to  take  their  side 
(E,  cp.  xxxv.  5).  We  do  not  always  relish  such 
modifications,  and  sometimes  it  seems  to  us  as  if 
they  made  the  matter  worse,  rather  than  better. 
Thus,  the  lie  of  Abraham  in  introducing  his  wife  as 
his  sister  (xii.  13),  in  which  the  earlier  narrators 
take  evident  pleasure,  is  after  all  more  tolerable 
than  the  mental  reservation  which  is  put  in  its  place, 
which  seems  to  us  Jesuitical  (xx.  12).  But  despite 
these  instances  we  must  not  surrender  our  gratifica- 
tion at  this  gradual  improvement  in  ethical  judg- 
ment which  we  can  see  in  Genesis. 

On  the  history  of  ethical  taste  which  is  to  be 
found  in  these  legends  we  have  already  treated  in 
the  preceding  pages  (see  p.  in)  and  have  but  a  few 
points  to  add  here.  We  gain  a  deep  insight  into 
the  heart  of  the  primitive  people  when  we  collect 
the  chief  motives  in  which  the  eye  of  the  legends 
takes  pleasure.  This  is  not  the  place  for  such  a 
summary;  attention  may,  however,  be  called  to  the 
fact   of   how  little   is  said   of  murder  and  assassina- 


116  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

tion,  and  on  the  contrary  how  much  is  said  of  peace- 
ful occupations  and  household  affairs,  especially  of 
the  begetting  of  children;  eating  and  drinking,  too, 
play  quite  a  role.  These  narrators  are  thoroughly 
posted  in  the  life  of  peasants  and  shepherds  and  are 
therefore  a  prime  source  for  our  "archaeology"; 
but  they  are  not  at  home  in  political  affairs:  in  this 
they  are  simple  and  natural. 

The  older  legends  are  often  quite  coarse:  for 
instance,  the  legend  of  the  defiant  Hagar  (xvi.),  or 
Jacob's  deception  of  his  blind  father  and  the  de- 
light of  the  listeners  (xxvii.),  or  the  exceedingly 
coarse  way  in  which  Laban's  quick-witted  daughter 
deceives  her  father  (xxxi.  34  f.):  it  must  have  been 
a  strong,  coarse  race  that  took  pleasure  in  such 
stories.  How  very  different  are  the  later  stories 
which  overflow  with  tears,  such  as  the  legend  of  the 
exile  of  Hagar  (xxi.),  of  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  and 
/especially  the  legends  of  Joseph!  Here  a  different 
generation  is  expressing  itself,  one  that  loves  emo- 
tion and  tears. 

Still  another  distinction  between  the  older  and  the 
later  time  is  that  the  former  was  interested  in  the 
familiar  things  of  its  nearest  surroundings,  while  the 
latter  tries  to  give  a  piquant  charm  to  its  stories  by 
•^locating  the  legend  far  away  and  introducing  the 
description  of  foreign  customs;  as  in  the  story  of 
Joseph. 

CRITERIA    OF    THE    AGE    OF    THE    LEGENDS. 

Accordingly  we  have  an  abundance  of  grounds  on 
which  we  can  establish  the  age  or  the  youth  of  the 
narratives.  Sometimes  we  are  enabled  to  outline 
a  very  brief  preliminary  or  pre-natal  history  of  the 


THE  LEGENDS  IN  ORAL  TRADITION.      117 

legend  in  question,  as  for  instance  in  the  case  of  the 
legend  of  Hagar  (xvi.),  in  which  first  an  "El,"  then 
Jahveh  himself,  and  then  his  messenger,  was  the 
divinity  that  appeared.  Often  a  series  of  various 
arguments  lead  to  a  given  conclusion,  that  a  legend 
is  late  or  early;  thus  the  legend  of  Abraham  in 
Egypt  is  to  be  regarded  for  many  reasons  as  very 
old;  it  is  very  brief,  has  a  primitive  local  coloring, 
and  does  not  idealise  its  personages,  and  so  on. 
On  the  other  hand,  many  arguments  lead  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  legend  of  Joseph  is  very  late:  it  has 
the  latest,  spun-out  style,  few  aetiological  elements, 
contains  the  belief  in  Providence,  and  so  on.  But 
very  often  the  various  considerations  cross  one 
another:  in  that  case  it  is  evident  that  the  legend 
contains  a  confused  mixture  of  early  and  late  ele- 
ments: thus  the  narrative  in  chapter  xv.,  containing 
no  complications,  seems  to  be  relatively  late,  but 
the  theophany  in  fire  and  smoke  is  surely  a  very 
primitive  conception.  The  different  phases  of 
development  have  not  been  distinct  and  clear  cut: 
early  features  often  continued  to  hold  their  own  for 
a  long  time;  hence  it  will  be  necessary  to  conceive 
of  this  outline  of  the  history  of  the  legends  not  as 
simple  and  straightforward,  but  as  very  confused 
and  full  of  vicissitudes. 

TRIBAL    LEGENDS. 

If  we  take  one  more  survey  of  the  history  of  these 
transformations,  we  shall  surely  have  to  admit  that 
we  can  get  sight  of  only  a  small  part  of  the  entire 
process.  These  transmutations  must  have  begun  at 
a    very    early    period,   a    period    so    early    that    our 


118 


THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 


sources  give  us  no  insight  into  it.  This  should  warn 
us  against  supposing  that  we  are  able  to  arrive 
always  at  the  very  primitive  significance  of  the  sto- 
ries from  the  historical  and  aetiological  allusions 
which  we  find  in  the  narratives.  In  this  connexion 
we  may  refer  to  the  legends  in  which  there  have 
been  no  such  allusions  from  the  beginning,  espe- 
cially the  legend  of  Jacob  and  Laban.  And  a  spe- 
cial warning  is  needed  against  rashly  interpreting 
as  tribal  legends  those  legends  whose  heroes  are 
plainly  ancestors  of  tribes,  for  it  may  be,  as  has 
been  shown  above,  that  the  story  was  applied  to  the 
tribal  hero  long  after  its  origin. 

And  if  it  is  scarcely  possible  for  us  to  declare 
from  the  sources  handed  down  to  us  the  original 
significance  of  the  legends,  neither  may  we  claim  to 
know  in  every  case  who  the  originals  were  of  the 
figures  in  the  legends  of  the  patriarchs.  Some  of 
them  are  really  names  of  countries,  or  races,  and  of 
tribes,    as   for   instance,  -Israel,    IshmaeJL,    Ammon, 


JVIoab,    Rachel,    Leah,    Hagar,    Kejturah, 

Tn   an    inscription   of  Thotmosis 


-9 


11 


,t£ihe_s_  of  Israel. 

Ill  (ca.  1500  B.  C.)  mention_Js  made  of  a  Canaani- 
tish  tribe  or  district  J' qb'ar^.  which  would  corre- 
spond to  a  Hebrew  Ja'aqob'el  (Hebrew  1  =  Egyptian 
r);  and  the  name  Jacob^eJ^would  be  related  to  Jacob 
as  Jephthahel  and  Jabnael  are' related  to  Jephthah 
and  Jabne:  they  are  all  names  of  tribes  or  of  places, 
like  Israel,  Ishmael,  and  Jerahmeel.  Even  on  this 
evidence  we  .should  conclude  that  Jacob  was  origin- 
ally the  name  of  a  Canaanitish  district,  which 
existed  in  Canaan  before  the  lsraelitish  immigra- 
tion.1 


!Cp.  Ed.  Meyer  ZAW  1886,  p.  1.  ff. 


THE  LEGENDS  IN  ORAL  TRADITION.      119 
PATRIARCHS    DISGUISED    DIVINITIES. 

Still    another   question    is,   whether    these    tribal 
names  were  not  also  originally  names  of  divinities,    _ 
as    for    instance  -As.shur   is   at   the   same   time    the 
name  of  the  GocLflf  Asshur  (Assyria).     This  is  to  be 
assumed   for  Gad,    which   is   aTTr7e~"same  time  the 
name  of  the  god  of^fortune,  and  also  fof_Jtdom^- 
cp.    the    name   Obed-edom,    "servant   of   Edom."  x 
Names  of  divinities  have  been  suspected  further  in 
Selah  (cp.    the  name  Methuselah  =  man  of  SelajQ,_ 
Re'u  (cp.   the  name  Re'u-el),  Nahor  (cp.  the  name 
Ebednahor  =  servant  of  Nahor),  Terah  (perhaps  the 
same  as  the  North-Syrian  god  Tarhu),  Haran  (cp. 
the   name   Bethharan  =  temple  of    Haran).     cSaiah____ 
and   Milkah   are,  as   we   know,    names  of  the  god- 
desses  orHaran,  with  which  the  Biblical  figures  of 
Sarah  and   Milkah  have  perhaps  some  connexion. 
This   suggests  very  easily  the   thought  that  Abra- 
ham, the  husband  of  Sarah,  has  been  substituted  for 
the  (moon-)  god  of   Haran.     The  name  .LajDan^loo, 
suggests  a  god:  Lebana  means  moon;  the  fact  that 
Laban   is   represented   as  being  a   shepherd  would 
correspond  to  his  character  as  a  moon-god:  for  the 
moon-god   may  be  represented   as  the  shepherd  of 
the  clouds._    In  ancient  as  well  as  in  modern  YimeT 
the  attempt  has  been  repeatedly  made  to  explain 
the  figures  of  Abraham,    Isaac,    and  Jacob  also  as 
originally  gods.     There  is  no  denying  that  this  con- 
jecture is  very  plausible.     The  whole  species  of  the 
legend — though  not  indeed  every  individual  legend 
— originated   in   the   myth;    at   least_jnanylegends_ 
are  derived  from  myths.     And  such  an  mterpreta- 

1Wellhausen  Composition3,  p.  47,  2.  ed. 


120  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

tion  is  very  natural  for  the  stories  of  Jonah  in  the 
whale's~rjellyTj3J  kstner  (Istar).  of  5>amson  (Semes's 
sun)  and  others.  What  is  more  natural  than  to 
attempt  this  interpretation  with  the  legends  of  Gen- 
esis whose  origin  goes  back  in  part  to  prehistoric 
times  when  myths  were  the  order  of  nature?  But — 
as  we  look  at  it — the  attempts  in  this  line  hitherto 
made  have  not  been  exactly  fortunate  and  have 
sometimes  failed  to  demonstrate  their  theses.  Of 
such  pieces  as  can  be  interpreted  with  reasonable 
certainty  as  remnants  of  mythical  narratives  there 
are  not  many  among  the  tales  of  the  patriarchs  (we 
are  not  now  speaking  of  the  legends  of  the  begin- 
nings) :  the  note  that  Abraham  with  318  servants  slew 
his  enemies  (xiv.  14)  may,  in  Winckler's  opinion,  go 
back  to  a  moon-myth,  the  moon  being  visible  318 
days  in  the  year;  Jacob's  wrestling  with  God  suggests 
that  this  Jacob  was  really  a  Titan,  and  consequently 
we  can  scarcely  avoid  seeing  here  a  faded  out  myth; 
Joseph's  dream  that  the  sun,  the  moon,  and  eleven 
stars  were  compelled  to  bow  down  before  him  must 
have  been  originally  an  oracle  referring  to  the  Lord 
of  Heaven  before  whom  the  highest  powers  of 
heaven  bow,  although  it  seems  that  this  dream  was 
introduced  very  late  into  the  story  of  Joseph. 

CAUTION  NEEDED  IN  INTERPRETATION. 

But  before  we  are  warranted  in  declaring  with 
regard  to  a  figure  in  Genesis  that  it  bears  the 
impress  of  an  earlier  god,  we  must  demand  not 
merely  that  certain  elements  of  a  story  permit  a 
mythical  interpretation,  but  that  whole  legends 
shall  possess  striking  resemblances  to  known  myths, 
or  that  they  can  be  interpreted  as  myths  in  perfectly 


THE  LEGENDS  IN  ORAL  TRADITION.      121 

clear  and  unquestioned  fashion.  Such  a  demonstra- 
tion as  this  has  not  been  given  by  investigators 
hitherto.1  Let  us  hope  that  those  who  attempt  it 
in  the  future  maybe  more  successful!  But  let  us 
by  no  means  fail  to  recognise  the  fact  that  Israel  in 
historical  times,  when  these  legends  were  told,  saw 
in  Abraham,  Isaac,   and  Jacob,   not  gods  but  men, 

its  ancestors.  And  we  must  further  demand  that 


1  The  older  theory  of  Goldziher  (Der  Mythos  bei den  Heb- 
raern,  1876),  which  depended  chiefly  on  the  etymologies  of 
names,  is  long  since  discredited.     Stucken  (Astralmythen,  I. 
Abraham,  1896,   II.   Lot,  1897)  bases  his  assertions  upon  indi- 
vidual elements  of  the  legends,  for  which  he  hunts  together  an 
amazing  abundance  of  parallels  from  all  over  the  world ;  but 
these  parallels   are    often  only  very  incidental.      As   Etana, 
carried  up  to  heaven  by  an  eagle,  according  to  the  Babylonian 
myth,  looks  down  upon  the  earth,  so  Abraham  and  Lot,  accord- 
ing to  Stucken,  look  upon  the  land  from  Bethel,  and  so  Abra- 
ham looks  up  to  heaven  and  upon  Sodom.     But  such  analogies 
will  not  stand  attack.     Winckler,  Geschichte  Israels,  II.,  1900, 
who  continues  to  build  upon  this  uncertain  foundation,  depends 
especially  upon  the  characteristic  numbers:  the  four  wives  of 
Jacob  are   the   four   phases  of  the  moon,  his  twelve  sons  the 
months ;  the  seven  children  of  Leah  are  the  gods  of  the  days 
of  the  week,  the   300   pieces  of  silver  which   Benjamin,    the 
youngest,  receives  are  the  30  days  of  the  last  month,  the  5  state 
dresses  are  the  5  intercalary  days;  Joseph's  coat  suggests  the 
garments  of  Tamar  and  Istar  (and  every  other  garment !) ;  his 
being  thrown  into  the  cistern  denotes  the  descent  of  Tammuz 
into  the  under  world ;  the  dipping  of  his  coat  in  blood  and  his 
father's  belief  that  he  had  been  eaten  by  a  wild  beast  suggest 
the  slaying  of  Adonis  by  the  boar,  and  so  on.     After  such  a 
review  we  cannot  yet  see  satisfactory  solutions  of  the  problem 
in  either  of  these  works,  although  we    gladly  recognize  the 
extensive  learning  and  the  keenness  of  them  both.     And  yet 
we  would  emphasize  the  point,  that  there  is  no  reason  on  prin- 
ciple against  a  mythical  interpretation  of  the  legends  of  the 
patriarchs. 


122  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

those  investigators  who  propose  to  find  mythologi- 
cal foundations  to  our  legends  must  first  of  all  inves- 
tigate most  carefully  the  history  of  the  legends 
which  lies  before  us  so  clearly  in  the  sources.  Only 
for  the  oldest  elements  of  the  legends  may  a  myth- 
ical origin  be  ultimately  expected.  Accordingly  we 
are  unable  to  say  what  the  figures  of  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  which  chiefly  interest  us,  may 
have  signified  originally.  But  this  is  by  no  means 
strange.  These  matters  are  simply  too  primitive 
for  us. 

Meditative  apologetics  is  wont  to  lay  great  impor- 
tance upon  the  historical  verity  of  Abraham;  in  our 
opinion  there  is  no  longer  any  room  for  this 
assumption,  and  moreover  it  is  hard  to  see  what 
significance  this  position  can  have  for  religion  and 
the  history  of  religion.  For  even  if  there  had 
once  been  a  leader  by  the  name  of  Abraham,  as  is 
generally  believed,  and  who  conducted  the  migra- 
tion from  Haran  to  Canaan,  this  much  is  beyond 
question  with  every  one  who  knows  anything  of  the 
history  of  legends,  that  a  legend  cannot  be  expected 
to  preserve  throughout  so  many  centuries  a  picture 
of  the  personal  piety  of  Abraham.  The  religion  of 
Abraham  is  in  reality  the  religion  of  the  narrators 
of  the  legends,  ascribed  by  them  to  Abraham. 


V. 


JAHVIST,   ELOHIST,   JEHOVIST,   THE 
LATER  COLLECTIONS. 

THE  collecting  of  legends  began  even  in  the  state 
of  oral  tradition.  In  the  preceding  pages  (see 
p.  79  ff.)  we  have  shown  how  individual  stories  first 
attracted  one  another  and  greater  complexes  of  leg- 
ends were  formed.  Connecting  portions  were  also 
composed  by  these  collectors,  such,  notably,  as  the 
story  of  the  birth  of  the  sons  of  Jacob,  which  is  not  at 
all  a  popular  legend  but  the  invention  of  older  story- 
tellers, and  must  have  been  in  existence  even  before 
the  work  of  J  and  E.  And  there  are  further  addi- 
tions, such  as  the  note  that  Jacob  bought  a  field  at 
Shechem,  and  other  similar  matters.  Those  who 
first  wrote  down  the  legends  continued  this  process 
of  collection.  The  writing  down  of  the  popular 
traditions  probably  took  place  at  a  period  which 
was  generally  disposed  to  authorship  and  when 
there  was  a  fear  that  the  oral  traditions  might  die 
out  if  they  were  not  reduced  to  writing.  We  may 
venture  to  conjecture  that  the  guild  of  story-tellers 
had  ceased  to  exist  at  that  time,  for  reasons 
unknown  to  us.  And  in  its  turn  the  reduction  to 
writing  probably  contributed  to  kill  out  the  remain- 

123 


124  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

ing  remnants  of  oral  tradition,  just  as  the  written  law 
destroyed  the  institution  of  the  priestly  Thora,  and 
the  New  Testament  canon  the  primitive  Christian 
Pneumatics. 

The  collection  of  the  legends  in  writing  was  not 
done  by  one  hand  or  at  one  period,  but  in_the 
course  of  a  very  long  process  by  several  or  many 
hands..  We  distinguish  two  stages  in  this  process: 
the  older,  to  which  we  owe  the  collections  of  the 
Jahvist  designated  by  'J'  and  the(Elohist  designated 
by  'E\  and  then  a  later,  thorough  revision  in  what 
is  known  as  the  Priestly  Codex  T\  In  the  preced- 
ing pages  as  a  rule  only  those  legends  have  been 
used  which  we  attribute  to  J  and  E.  All  these 
books  of  legends  contain  not  only  the  primitive 
legends,  of  which  we  have  been  speaking,  but  also 
tell  at  the  same  time  their  additional  stories;  we 
may  (with  Wildeboer)  characterise  their  theme  as 
"the  choice  of  Israel  to  be  the  people  of  Jahveh" ; 
in  the  following  remarks,  however,  they  will  be 
treated  in  general  only  so  far  as  they  have  to  do 
with  Genesis. 

"jahvist"  and  "elohist"_collectors,  not  authors. 

Previous  writers  have  in  large  measure  treatedj" 
and  E  as  personal  authors,  assuming  as  a  matter  of 
course  that  their  writings,  constitute,  at  least  to  some 
extent,  units  and  originate  in  all  essential  features 
with  their  respective  writers,  and  attempting  to 
derive  from  the  various  data  of  these  writings  con- 
sistent pictures  of  their  authors.  But  in  a  final 
phase  criticism  has  recognised  that  these  two  col- 
lections do  not  constitute  complete  unities,  and 
pursuing  this  line  of  knowledge  still  further  has  dis- 


THE  LA  TER  COLLECTIONS.  125 

tinguished  within  these  sources  still  other  subordi- 
nate sources.1 

But  in  doing  this  there  has  been  a  neglect  to  raise 
with  perfect  clearness  the  primary  question,  how 
far  these  two  groups  of  writings  may  be  understood 
as  literary  unities  in  any  sense,  or  whether,  on  the 
contrary,  they  are  not  collections,  codifications  of 
oral  traditions,  and  whether  their  composers  are 
not  to  be  called  collectors  rather  than  authors. 

That  the  latter  view  is  the  correct  one  is  shown 
(i)  by  the  fact  that  they  have  adopted  such  hetero- 
geneous materials.  J  contains  separate  legends  and 
legend  cycles,  condensed  and  detailed  stories, 
delicate  and  coarse  elements,  primitive  and  modern 
elements  in  morals  and  religion,  stories  with  vivid 
antique  colors  along  with  those  quite  faded  out. 
It  is  much  the  same  with  E,  who  has,  for  instance, 
the  touching  story  of  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac  and  at 
the  same  time  a  variant  of  the  very  ancient  legend 
of  Jacob's  wrestling  with  the  angel.  This  variety 
shows  that  the  legends  of  E,  and  still  more 
decidedly  those  of  J,  do  not  bear  the  stamp  of  a 
single  definite  time  and  still  less  of  a  single  person- 
ality, but  that  they  were  adopted  by  their  collectors 
essentially  as  they  were  found. 

Secondly,  the  same  conclusion  is  suggested  by  an 
examination  of  the  variants  of  J  and  of  E.  On  the 
one  hand  they  often  agree  most  characteristically: 
both,  for  instance,  employ  the  most  condensed  style 
in  the  story  of  Penuel,  and  in  the  story  of  Joseph 
the  most  detailed.  For  this  very  reason,  because 
they  are  so  similar,  it  was  possible  for  a  later  hand 
to  combine  them   in  such  a  way  that  they  are  often 

1  Such  is  the  outcome  especially  in  Budde's  Urgeschichte, 


126  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

merged  to  a  degree  such  that  it  is  impossible  for  us 
to  distinguish  them.  On  the  other  hand,  they 
frequently  differ,  in  which  case  J  very  often  has  the 
elder  version,  but  often  the  reverse. 

Thus  the  robust  primitive  version  of  the  Hagar 
story  in  J  (chap,  xvi.)  is  older  than  the  lachrymose 
version  of  E  (xxi  );  the  story  of  Jacob  and  Laban 
is  told  more  laconically  and  more  naively  by  J  than 
by  E;  in  the  narrative  of  the  birth  of  the  children 
of  Jacob,  J  speaks  with  perfect  frankness  of  the 
magic  effect  of  the  mandrakes  (xxx.  14  ff.),  instead 
of  which  E  substitutes  the  operations  of  divine 
favor  (xxx.  17);  in  the  story  of  Dinah,  J,  who 
depicts  Jacob's  horror  at  the  act  of  his  sons,  is  more 
just  and  more  vigorous  in  his  judgment  than  E, 
where  God  himself  is  compelled  to  protect  Jacob's 
sons  (xxxv.  5,  see  variant  reading  of  RV) ;  in  the 
story  of  Joseph  the  Ishmaelites  of  J  (xxxvii.  25)  are 
older  than  the  Midianites  of  E  (xxxvii.  28)  who 
afterwards  vanish  from  the  account;  in  the  testa- 
ment of  Jacob  his  wish,  according  to  E  (xlviii.  7), 
to  be  buried  beside  his  best  loved  wife  is  more 
tender  and  more  sentimental  than  his  request  in  J 
(xlvii.  29  ff.)  to  rest  in  the  tomb  with  his  ancestors; 
and  other  similar  cases  might  be  cited. 

On  the  other  hand,  E  does  not  yet  know  of  the 
Philistines  in  Gerar  of  whom  J  speaks  (xxi.  26);  the 
deception  of  Jacob  by  means  of  the  garb  of  skins  in 
E  is  more  naive  than  that  by  means  of  the  scent 
of  the  garments  in  J;  the  many  divine  beings  whom, 
according  to  E,  Jacob  sees  at  Bethel  are  an  older 
conception  than  that  of  the  one  Jahveh  in  the  ver- 
sion of  J;  only  in  J,  but  not  yet  in  E,  do  we  sud- 
denly meet  a  belated  Israelitising  of  the  legend  of 


THE  LA  TER  COLLECTIONS.  V21 

the  covenant  of  Gilead  (xxxi  52);  in  the  story  of 
Joseph,  Reuben,  who  had  disappeared  in  historical 
times,  occupies  the  same  position  as  does  in  J  the 
much  better  known  Judah  of  later  times;  the  vocab- 
ulary of  E  whereby  he  avoids  the  name  of  Jahveh 
throughout  Genesis,  is  based,  as  shown  above  (see 
page  92)  upon  an  early  reminiscence  which  is 
lacking  in  J;  on  the  other  hand,  one  cannot  deny 
that  this  absolutely  consistent  avoidance  of  the 
name  of  Jahveh  before  the  appearance  of  Moses 
shows  the  reflexion  of  theological  influence,  which 
is  wholly  absent  in  J. 

These  observations,  which  could  easily  be 
extended,  show  also  that  there  is  no  literary  con- 
nexion between  J  and  E;  J  has  not  copied  from  E, 
nor  E  from  J.  If  both  sources  occasionally  agree 
verbally  the  fact  is  to  be  explained  on  the  basis  of 
a  common  original  source. 

But  thirdly,  the  principal  point  is  that  we  can  see 
in  the  manner  in  which  the  legends  are  brought 
together  in  these  books  the  evidence  that  we  are 
dealing  with  collections  which  cannot  have  been 
completed  at  one  given  time,  but  developed  in  the 
course  of  history.  The  recognition  of  this  fact  can 
be  derived  especially  from  a  careful  observation  of 
the  manner  of  J,  since  J  furnishes  us  the  greatest 
amount  of  material  in  Genesis.  The  observation  of 
the  younger  critics  that  several  sources  can  be  dis- 
tinguished in  J,  and  especially  in  the  story  of  the 
beginnings,  approves  itself  to  us  also;  but  we  must 
push  these  investigations  further  and  deeper  by  sub- 
stituting for  a  predominantly  critical  examination 
which  deals  chiefly  with  individual  books,  an  his- 
torical   study   based    upon   the   examination  of  the 


128  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

literary  method  of  J  and  aiming  to  give  a  history  of 
the  entire  literary  species. 

THE   JAHVIST'S   SOURCES. 

In  J's  story  of  the  beginnings  we  distinguish  three 
sources,  two  of  which  present  what  were  originally 
independent  parallel  threads.  It  is  particularly 
clear  that  J  contained  originally  two  parallel  pedi- 
grees of  the  race:  beside  the  traditional  Cainite 
genealogy,  a  Sethite  line,  of  which  v.  29  is  a  frag- 
ment. In  combining  the  two  earlier  sources  a  third 
one  was  also  introduced,  from  which  comes  the 
legend  of  Cain  and  Abel,  which  cannot  originally 
belong  to  a  primitive  time.  In  the  story  of  Abra- 
ham also  we  can  recognise  three  hands:  into  a  cycle 
of  legends  treating  the  destinies  of  Abraham  and 
Lot  have  been  introduced  other  elements,  such  as 
the  legend  of  Abraham  in  Egypt  and  the  flight  of 
Hagar,  probably  from  another  book  of  legends;  still 
a  third  hand  has  added  certain  details,  such  as  the 
appeal  of  Abraham  for  Sodom.  More  complicated 
is  the  composition  of  the  stories  of  Jacob:  into  the 
cycle  of  Jacob,  Esau  and  Laban  have  been  injected 
certain  legends  of  worship;  afterwards  there  were 
added  legends  of  the  various  sons  of  Jacob;  we  are 
able  to  survey  this  process  as  a  whole  very  well,  but 
are  no  longer  able  to  detect  the  individual  hands. 

While  the  individual  stories  of  the  creation 
merely  stand  in  loose  juxtaposition,  some  of  the 
Abraham  stories  and  especially  the  Jacob-Esau- 
Laban  legends  are  woven  into  a  closer  unity.  This 
union  is  still  closer  in  the  legend  of  Joseph.  Here 
the  legends  of  Joseph's  experiences  in  Egypt  and 
with  his  brothers  constitute  a  well-constructed  com- 


THE  LA  TER  COLLECTIONS.  129 

position;  but  here  too  the  passage  on  Joseph's  agra- 
rian policy  (xlvii.  13  ff.),  which  interrupts  the  con- 
nexion, shows  that  several  different  hands  have  been 
at  work.  Furthermore,  it  is  quite  plain  that  the 
legend  of  Tamar,  which  has  no  connexion  with 
Joseph,  and  the  "blessing  of  Jacob,"  which  is  a 
poem,  not  a  legend,  were  not  introduced  until  later. 

From  this  survey  we  perceive  that  J  is  not  a 
primary  and  definitive  collection,  but  is  based  upon 
older  collections  and  is  the  result  of  the  collabora- 
tion of  several  hands. 

The  same  condition  is  to  be  recognised  in  E, 
though  only  by  slight  evidences  so  far  as  Genesis  is 
concerned,  as  in  the  present  separation  by  the  story 
of  Ishmael  (xxi.  8  ff. )  of  the  two  legends  of  Gerar 
(xx.,  xxi.,  25  ff. )  which  belong  together,  or  in  the 
derivation  of  Beersheba  from  Abraham  (xxi.  25  ff. ) 
by  the  one  line  of  narrative,  from  Isaac  (xlvi.  1-3) 
by  the  other. 

THE  PROCESS  OF  COLLECTION. 

The  history  of  the  literary  collection  presents, 
then,  a  very  complex  picture,  and  we  may  be  sure 
that  we  are  able  to  take  in  but  a  small  portion  of  it. 
In  olden  times  there  may  have  been  a  whole  litera- 
ture of  such  collections,  of  which  those  preserved  to 
us  are  but  the  fragments,  just  as  the  three  synoptic 
gospels  represent  the  remains  of  a  whole  gospel 
literature.  The  correctness  of  this  view  is  supported 
by  a  reconstruction  of  the  source  of  P,  which  is 
related  to  J  in  many  respects  (both  containing,  for 
instance,  a  story  of  the  beginnings),  but  also  cor- 
responds with  E  at  times  (as  in  the  name  Paddan, 
attached  to  the  characterisation  of  Laban  as  "the 


130  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

Aramaean";  cp.  the  Commentary,  p.  349),  and  also 
contributes  in  details  entirely  new  traditions  (such 
as  the  item  that  Abraham  set  out  from  Ur-Kasdim, 
the  narrative  of  the  purchase  of  the  cave  of  Mach- 
pelah,  and  other  matters). 

But  for  the  complete  picture  of  the  history  of  the 
formation  of  the  collection  the  most  important  obser- 
vation is  that  with  which  this  section  began:  the 
whole  process  began  in  the  stage  of  oral  tradition. 
The  first  hands  which  wrote  down  legends  probably 
recorded  such  connected  stories;  others  then  added 
new  legends,  and  thus  the  whole  body  of  material 
gradually  accumulated.  And  thus,  along  with 
others,  our  collections  J  and  E  arose.  J.  and  E, 
then,  are  not  individual  authors,  nor  are  they  edi- 
tors of  older  and  consistent  single  writings,  but 
rather  they  are  schools  of  narrators.  From  this 
point  of  view  it  is  a  matter  of  comparative  indiffer- 
ence what  the  individual  hands  contributed  to  the 
whole,  because  they  have  very  little  distinction 
and  individuality,  and  we  shall  probably  never 
ascertain  with  certainty.  Hence  we  feel  constrained 
to  abstain  as  a  matter  of  principle  from  construct- 
ing a  hypothesis  on  the  subject. 

RELATION  OF  THE  COLLECTORS  TO  THEIR  SOURCES. 

These  collectors,  then,  are  not  masters,  but  rather 
servants  ojjhejr  subjects.  We  may  imagine  them, 
filled  with  reverence  for  the  beautiful  ancient  stories 
and  endeavoring  to  reproduce  them  as  well  and 
faithfully  as  they  could.  Fidelity  was  their  prime 
quality.  This  explains  why  they  accepted  so  many 
things  which  they  but  half  understood  and  which 
were  alien  to  their  own  taste  and  feeling;  and  why 


THE  LA  TER  COLLECTIONS.  131 

they  faithfully  preserved  many  peculiarities  of 
individual  narratives, — thus  the  narrative  of  the 
wooing  of  Rebeccah  does  not  give  the  name  of  the 
city  of  Haran,  while  other  passages  in  J  are  familiar 
with  it  (xxvii.  43;  xxviii.  10;  xxix.  4).  On  the 
other  hand,  we  may  imagine  that  they  were  secretly 
offended  by  many  things  in  the  tradition,  here  and 
there  combined  different  versions  {Commentary,  p. 
428),  smoothing  away  the  contradictions  between 
them  a  little  {Commentary,  p.  332)  and  leaving  out 
some  older  feature  in  order  to  introduce  something 
new  and  different,  perhaps  the  piece  of  a  variant 
familiar  to  them  {Commentary,  p.  59);  that  they 
developed  more  clearly  this  motive  and  that,  which 
happened  to  please  them  particularly,  and  even 
occasionally  reshaped  a  sort  of  history  by  the  com- 
bination of  various  traditions  {Commentary,  p.  343), 
and  furthermore  that  they  were  influenced  by  the 
religious,  ethical,  and  aesthetic  opinions  of  their 
time  to  make  changes  here  and  there. 

The  process  of  remodeling  the  legends,  which 
had  been  under  way  for  so  long,  went  farther  in 
their  hands.  As  to  details,  it  is  difficult,  and  for 
the  most  part  impossible,  to  say  what  portion  of 
these  alterations  belongs  to  the  period  of  oral  tra- 
dition and  what  portion  to  the  collectors  or  to  a 
later  time.  In  the  preceding  pages  many  altera- 
tions have  been  discussed  which  belong  to  the 
period  of  written  tradition.  In  general  we  are  dis- 
posed to  say  that  the  oral  tradition  is  responsible 
for  a  certain  artistic  inner  modification,  and  the  col- 
lectors for  a  more  superficial  alteration  consisting 
merely  of  omissions  and  additions.  Moreover,  the 
chief  point  of  interest  is  not  found  in  this  question; 


132  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

it  will  always  remain  the  capital  matter  to  under- 
stand the  inner  reasons  for  the  modifications. 

It  is  also  probable  that  some  portions  of  consider- 
able size  were  omitted  or  severely  altered  under  the 
hands  of  the  collectors;  thus  the  legend  of  Hebron, 
as  the  promise  (xviii.  10)  clearly  shows,  presumes 
a  continuation;  some  portions  have  been  omitted 
from  the  tradition  as  we  have  it,  probably  by  a 
collector;  other  considerable  portions  have  been 
added  after  the  whole  was  reduced  to  writing,  for 
instance,  those  genealogies  which  are  not  remnants 
of  legends,  but  mere  outlines  of  ethnographic  rela- 
tionships; furthermore  a  piece  such  as  the  conversa- 
tion of  Abraham  with  God  before  Sodom,  which  by 
its  style  is  of  the  very  latest  origin,  and  other  cases 
of  this  sort.  Moreover  a  great,  primitive  poem  was 
added  to  the  legends  after  they  were  complete 
(Genesis  xlix). 

We  cannot  get  a  complete  general  view  of  the 
changes  made  by  these  collections,  but  despite  the 
fidelity  of  the  collectors  in  details  we  may  assume 
that  the  whole  impression  made  by  the  legends  has 
been  very  considerably  altered  by  the  collection 
and  redaction  they  have  undergone.  Especially 
probable  is  it  that  the  brilliant  colors  of  the  indi- 
vidual legends  have  been  dulled  in  the  process: 
what  were  originally  prominent  features  of  the 
legends  lose  their  importance  in  the  combination 
with  other  stories  {Commentary,  p.  161);  the  vary- 
ing moods  of  the  separate  legends  are  reconciled 
and  harmonised  when  they  come  into  juxtaposition; 
jests,  perhaps,  now  filled  in  with  touches  of  emotion 
(p.  331),  or  combined  with  serious  stories  (Com- 
me?itary,  p.  158),  cease  to  be  recognised  as  mirthful; 


THE  LA  TER  COLLECTIONS.  133 

the  ecclesiastical  tone  of  certain  legends  becomes 
the  all-pervading  tone  of  the  whole  to  the  feeling 
of  later  times.  Thus  the  legends  now  make  the 
impression  of  an  old  and  originally  many-colored 
painting  that  has  been  many  times  re-touched  and 
has  grown  dark  with  age.  Finally,  it  must  be 
emphasised  that  this  fidelity  of  the  collectors  is 
especially  evident  in  Genesis;  in  the  later  legends, 
which  had  not  such  a  firm  hold  upon  the  popular 
taste,  the  revision  may  have  been  more  thorough- 
going. 

RELATION  OF  JAHVIST  TO  ELOHIST. 

The  two  schools  of  J  and  E  are  very  closely 
related;  their  whole  attitude  marks  them  as  belong- 
ing to  essentially  the  same  period.  From  the 
material  which  they  have  transmitted  it  is  natural 
that  the  collectors  should  have  treated  with  especial 
sympathy  the  latest  elements,  that  is,  particularly 
those  which  were  nearest  to  their  own  time  and 
taste.  The  difference  between  them  is  found  first 
in  their  use  of  language,  the  most  significant  feature 
of  which  is  that  J  says  Jahveh  before  the  time  of 
MosesJ_^hJ_le_E_says_Elohim.  Besides  this  there 
are  other  elements:  the  tribal  patriarch  is  called 
"Israel"  by  J  after  the  episode  of  Penuel,  but 
"Jacob"  by  E;  J  calls  the  maid-servant  "sipha,  E 
calls  her  " 'ama,"  J  calls  the  grainsack  "saq,"  E 
calls  it  "  'amtahat,"  and  so  on.  But,  as  is  often 
the  case,  such  a  use  of  language  is  not  here  an  evi- 
dence of  a  single  author,  but  rather  the  mark  of  a 
district  or  region. 

In  very  many  cases  we  are  unable  to  distinguish 
the  two   sources  by  the  vocabulary;    then  the  only 


134  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

guide  is,  that  the  variants  from  the  two  sources 
present  essentially  the  same  stories,  which  show 
individual  differences  in  their  contents.  Thus  in  J 
Isaac  is  deceived  by  Jacob  by  means  of  the  smell  of 
Esau's  garments,  in  E  by  the  skins,  a  difference 
which  runs  through  a  great  portion  of  both  stories. 
Or,  we  observe  that  different  stories  have  certain 
pervading  marks,  such  as,  that  Joseph  is  sold  in  J 
by  Ishmaelites  to  an  Egyptian  householder,  but  in 
E  is  sold  by  Midianites  to  the  eunuch  Potiphar 
Often  evidences  of  this  sort  are  far  from  con- 
clusive; consequently  we  can  give  in  such  cases 
nothing  but  conjectures  as  to  the  separation  of  the 
sources.  And  where  even  such  indications  are 
lacking  there  is  an  end  of  all  safe  distinction. 

In  the  account  of  the  beginnings  we  cannot  recog- 
nise the  hand  of  E  at  all;  it  is  probable  that  he  did 
not  undertake  to  give  it,  but  began  his  book  with 
the  patriarch  Abraham.  Perhaps  there  is  in  this 
an  expression  of  the  opinion  of  the  school  that  the 
history  of  the  beginnings  was  too  heathenish  to 
deserve  preservation.  Often  but  not  always  the 
version  of  J  has  an  older  form  than  that  of  E.  J 
has  the  most  lively,  objective  narratives,  while  E, 
on  the  other  hand,  has  a  series  of  sentimental,  tear- 
ful stories,  such  as  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  the  expul- 
sion of  Ishmael,  and  Jacob's  tenderness  for  his 
grandchildren. 

Their  difference  is  especially  striking  in  their 
conceptions  of  the  theophany:  J  is  characterised  by 
the  most  primitive  theophanies,  E,  on  the  other 
hand,  by  dreams  and  the  calling  of  an  angel  out  of 
heaven,  in  a  word  by  the  least  sensual  sorts  of 
revelation.       The   thought   of    divine    Providence, 


THE  LA  TER  COLLECTIONS.  135 

which  makes  even  sin  contribute  to  good  ends  is 
expressly  put  forth  by  E  in  the  story  of  Joseph, 
but  not  by  J.  Accordingly  there  is  reason  for 
regarding  J  as  older  than  E,  as  is  now  frequently 
done.  Their  relation  to  the  Prophetic  authors  is  to 
be  treated  in  subsequent  pages. 

Inasmuch  as  J  in  the  story  of  Joseph  puts  Judah 
in  the  place  of  Reuben,  since  he  gives  a  specifically 
Judean  version  in  the  case  of  the  legend  of  Tamar, 
and  because  he  has  so  much  to  say  of  Abraham, 
who,  it  seems,  has  his  real  seats  in  Hebron  and  in 
Negeb  (southward  of  Judah),  we  may  agree  with 
many  recent  critics  in  placing  the  home  of  this  col- 
lection in  Judah.  It  has  been  conjectured  on  the 
contrary  that  E  has  its  home  in  Northern  Israel;  in 
fact  this  source  speaks  a  great  deal  of  Northern 
Israelitic  localities,  but  yet,  at  the  same  time,  much 
of  Beersheba;  furthermore,  in  the  story  of  Joseph 
E  hints  once  incidentally  at  the  reign  of  Joseph 
(xxxvii.  8),  though  this  too  may  be  derived  from 
the  tradition.  Certainly  it  cannot  be  claimed  that 
the  two  collections  have  any  strong  partizan  ten- 
dency in  favor  of  the  north  and  south  kingdoms 
respectively. 

Other  characteristics  of  the  collectors  than  these 
can  scarcely  be  derived  from  Genesis.  Of  course, 
it  would  be  easy  to  paint  a  concrete  picture  of 
J  and  E,  if  we  venture  to  attribute  to  them  what- 
ever is  to  be  found  in  their  books.  But  this  is 
forbidden  by  the  very  character  of  these  men  as 
collectors.1 

1  If  the  reader  cannot  be  satisfied  with  the  little  that  we 
have  given,  he  must  at  least  be  very  much  more  cautious  than, 
for  instance,  such  a  writer  as  Hokinger  on  the  Hexateuch. 


136  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

THE  AGE  OF  THE  JAHVIST  AND  ELOHIST  SCHOOLS. 

The  question  of  the  absolute  age  of  J  and  E  is 
exceedingly  difficult.  We,  who  believe  that  we 
have  here  to  deal  with  a  gradual  codification  of 
ancient  traditions,  are  constrained  to  resolve  this 
question  into  a  number  of  subordinate  questions: 
When  did  these  traditions  arise?  When  did  they 
become  known  in  Israel?  When  did  they  receive 
essentially  their  present  form?  When  were  they 
written  down?  That  is  to  say,  our  task  is  not  to 
fix  a  single  definite  date;  but  we  are  to  make  a 
chronological  scale  for  a  long  process.  But  this  is 
a  very  difficult  problem,  for  intellectual  processes 
are  very  difficult  in  general  to  fix  chronologically; 
and  there  is  the  further  difficulty  that  blocks  us  in 
general  with  all  such  questions  about  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, that  we  know  too  little  about  ancient  Israel 
in  order  to  warrant  positive  conclusions  in  the  pres- 
ent case.  Very  many  of  the  chronological  conjec- 
tures of  literary  criticism,  in  so  far  as  they  are  based 
only  upon  the  study  of  the  history  of  religion,  are 
more  or  less  unsafe. 

The  origin  of  many  of  the  legends  lies  in  what  is 
for  Israel  a  prehistoric  age.  Even  the  laconic 
style  of  the  legends  is  primitive;  the  stories  of  the 
"Judges"  are  already  in  a  more  detailed  style. 
After  the  entrance  of  Israel  into  Canaan  foreign 
themes  come  in  in  streams.  Very  many  of  the 
legends  presuppose  the  possession  of  the  land  and 
a  knowledge  of  its  localities.  Among  the  Israelitish 
subjects,  the  genealogy  of  the  twelve  sons  of  Jacob 
does  not  correspond  with  the  seats  of  the  tribes  in 
Canaan,  and  must,  therefore,  represent  older  rela- 
tions.    The  latest  of  the  Israelitish  legends  of  Gen- 


THE  LA  TER  COLLECTIONS.  137 

esis  that  we  know  treat  the  retirement  of  Reuben, 
the  origin  of  the  families  of  Judah  and  the  assault 
upon  Shechem,  that  is,  events  from  the  earlier  por- 
tion of  the  period  of  the  "Judges."  In  the  later 
portion  of  this  period  the  poetic  treatment  of  races 
as  individuals  was  no  longer  current:  by  this  time 
new  legends  of  the  patriarchs  had  ceased  to  be 
formed. 

The  period  of  the  formation  of  legends  of  the 
patriarchs  is,  then,  closed  with  this  date  (about 
1200).  The  correctness  of  this  estimate  is  confirmed 
by  other  considerations:  the  sanctuary  at  Jerusalem, 
so  famous  in  the  time  of  kings,  is  not  referred  to  in 
the  legends  of  the  patriarchs;  on  the  contrary  the 
establishment  of  this  sanctuary  is  placed  by  the 
legends  of  worship  in  the  time  of  David  (2  Sam. 
xxiv.).  The  reign  of  Saul,  the  conflict  of  Saul 
with  David,  the  united  kingdom  under  David  and 
Solomon,  the  separation  of  the  two  kingdoms  and 
the  war  between  them, — we  hear  no  echoes  of  all 
this  in  the  older  legends;  a  clear  proof  that  no 
new  legends  of  the  patriarchs  were  being  formed  at 
that  time.  At  what  time  the  legends  of  Moses, 
Joshua  and  others  originated  is  a  question  for  dis- 
cussion elsewhere. 

RE-MODELING  OF  THE  LEGENDS. 

The  period  of  the  formation  of  the  legends  is  fol- 
lowed by  one  of  re-modeling.  This  is  essentially 
the  age  of  the  earlier  kings.  That  is  probably  the 
time  when  Israel  was  again  gathered  together  from 
its  separation  into  different  tribes  and  districts  to 
one  united  people,  the  time  when  the  various  dis- 
tinct traditions  grew  together  into  a  common  body 


138  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

of  national  legends.  The  great  growth  which  Israel 
experienced  under  the  first  kings  probably  yielded 
it  the  moral  force  to  lay  claim  to  the  foreign  tales 
and  give  them  a  national  application.  At  this  time 
the  Jacob-Esau  legend  received  its  interpretation 
referring  to  Israel  and  Edom:  Israel  has  in  the 
meantime  subjected  Edom,  the  event  occurring 
under  David,  and  Judah  retaining  her  possession 
until  about  840.  Meanwhile  Ephraim  has  out- 
stripped Manasseh,  probably  in  the  beginning  of 
the  period  of  the  kings.  In  the  legend  of  Joseph 
there  occurs  an  allusion  to  the  dominion  of  Joseph 
(xxxvii.  8,  E),  which,  however,  found  its  way  into 
the  legend  at  some  later  time.  The  dreadful  Syrian 
wars,  which  begin  about  the  year  900,  are  not  yet 
mentioned  in  the  Jacob-Laban  legend,  but  only 
occasional  border  forays.  The  city  of  Asshur, 
which  was  the  capital  until  1300,  has  passed  from  the 
memory  of  the  Hebrew  tradition;  but  Nineveh  (x. 
11),  the  capital  from  about  1000  on,  seems  to  be 
known  to  it.  Accordingly  we  may  at  least  assume 
that  by  900  B.C.  the  legends  were  essentially,  so  far 
as  the  course  of  the  narrative  goes,  as  we  now  read 
them. 

As  for  allusions  to  political  occurrences  later  than 
900,  we  have  only  a  reference  to  the  rebellion  of 
Edom  (about  840),  which,  however,  is  plainly  an 
addition  to  the  legend  (xxvii.  40^).  The  other 
cases  that  are  cited  are  inconclusive:  the  reference 
to  the  Assyrian  cities  (x.  11  ff. )  does  not  prove 
that  these  passages  come  from  the  "Assyrian" 
period,  for  Assyria  had  certainly  been  known  to  the 
Israelites  for  a  long  time;  just  as  little  does  the 
mention   of   Kelah   warrant    a  conclusion,   for   the 


THE  LA  TER  COLLECTIONS.  139 

city  was  restored  in  870,  though  it  had  been  the 
capital  since  about  1300  (in  both  of  these  points  I 
differ  from  the  conclusions  of  Cornill,  Einleitung 
in  das  Alte  Testament?  p.  46).  According  to 
Lagarde,  Mitteilungen,  III.,  p.  226  ff.,  the  Egyptian 
names  in  Genesis  xli.  bring  us  down  into  the 
seventh  century;  but  this  is  by  no  means  positive, 
for  the  names  which  were  frequently  heard  at  that 
time  had  certainly  been  known  in  earlier  times. 

But  even  though  no  new  political  references  crept 
into  the  legends  after  about  900,  and  though  they 
have  remained  unchanged  in  their  essentials  from 
this  time  on,  they  may  nevertheless  have  undergone 
many  internal  alterations.  This  suggests  a  com- 
parison with  a  piece  like  Genesis  xlix. :  this  piece, 
coming  from  the  time  of  David,  harmonises  in  tone 
with  the  oldest  legends.  Hence  we  may  assume 
another  considerable  period  during  which  the  reli- 
gious and  moral  changes  in  the  legends  above  men- 
tioned were  taking  place.  This  period  lasts  over 
into  that  of  the  collection  of  the  legends  and  is 
closed  by  it. 

RELATION  OF  THE  COLLECTIONS  TO  THE  PROPHETS. 

When  did  the  collection  of  the  legends  take 
place?  This  question  is  particularly  difficult,  for 
we  have  only  internal  data  for  its  solution,  and  we 
can  establish  these  in  their  turn  only  after  estab- 
lishing the  date  of  the  sources.  So  unfortunately  we 
are  moving  here  in  the  familiar  circle,  and  with  no 
present  prospect  of  getting  out  of  it.  Investigators 
must  consider  this  before  making  unqualified 
declarations  on  the  subject.  Furthermore  it  is  to 
be  borne   in   mind   that   not   even  these  collections 


140  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

were  completed  all  at  once,  but  grew  into  shape 
through  a  process  which  lasted  no  one  can  say  how 
many  decades  or  centuries.  The  real  question  in 
fixing  the  date  of  the  sources  is  the  relation  of  the 
two  to  the  authors  of  the  "Prophets."  Now  there 
are,  to  be  sure,  many  things  in  Genesis  that  suggest 
a  relation  with  these  Prophets,  but  the  assumption 
of  many  modern  critics  that  this  relation  must  be 
due  to  some  direct  influence  of  the  Prophetic  writ- 
ers is  very  doubtful  in  many  cases;  we  do  not  know 
the  religion  of  Israel  sufficiently  well  to  be  able  to 
declare  that  certain  thoughts  and  sentiments  were 
first  brought  to  light  by  the  very  Prophets  whose 
writings  we  possess  (all  later  than  Amos):  the 
earnestness  with  which  the  legend  of  the  Deluge 
speaks  of  the  universal  sinfulness  of  mankind,  and 
the  glorification  of  the  faith  of  Abraham  are  not 
specifically  "Prophetic."  The  hostility  of  the 
collectors  to  the  images  of  Jahveh  and  to  the 
Asherim  (sacred  poles),  of  which  they  never  speak, 
to  the  Massebah  (obelisks),  which  J  passes  over  but 
E  still  mentions,  to  the  "golden  calf"  which  is 
regarded  by  the  legend  according  to  E  (Exodus 
xxxii.)  as  sinful,  as  well  as  to  the  teraphim,  which 
the  Jacob-Laban  legend  wittily  ridicules  (xxxi.  30 
f. ), — all  of  this  may  easily  be  independent  of 
"Prophetic"  influence.  Sentiments  of  this  nature 
may  well  have  existed  in  Israel  long  before  the 
"Prophets,"  indeed  we  must  assume  their  existence 
in  order  to  account  for  the  appearance  of  the 
"Prophets." 

True,  E  calls  Abraham  a  nabi  (prophet),  xx.  7; 
that  is  to  say,  he  lived  at  a  time  when  "Prophet" 
and   "man   of  God"  were   identical;    but  the  guild 


THE  LA  TER  COLLECTIONS.  141 

of  the  Nebiim  was  flourishing  long  before  the  time 
of  Amos,  and  in  Hosea  also,  xii.  14,  Moses  is 
called  a  "Prophet."  Accordingly  there  is  nothing 
in  the  way  of  regarding  E  and  J  both  as  on  the 
whole  "pre-Prophetic."  This  conclusion  is  sup- 
ported by  a  number  of  considerations:  the  Prophetic 
authors  are  characterised  by  their  predictions  of 
the  destruction  of  Israel,  by  their  polemic  against 
alien  gods  and  against  the  high  places  of  Israel, 
and  by  their  rejection  of  sacrifices  and  ceremonials. 
These  very  characteristic  features  of  the  "Prophets" 
are  absent  in  J  and  E  in  Genesis,  J  has  no  notion 
of  other  gods  at  all  except  Jahveh,  and  Jacob's 
abolition  of  alien  gods  for  the  sake  of  a  sacred 
ceremony  in  honor  of  Jahveh,  xxxv.  4  in  the  tra- 
dition of  E,  does  not  sound  like  a  "Prophetic" 
utterance.  Of  an  opposition  to  strange  gods  there 
is  never  any  talk,  at  least  not  in  Genesis. 

And  while  these  collections  contain  nothing  that 
is  characteristically  Prophetic,  they  have  on  the 
other  hand  much  that  must  needs  have  been  exceed- 
ingly offensive  to  the  Prophets:  they  have,  for 
instance,  an  especially  favorable  attitude  toward 
the  sacred  places  which  the  Prophets  assail  so  bit- 
terly; they  maintain  toward  the  primitive  reli- 
gion and  morality  a  simple  leniency  which  is  the 
very  opposite  of  the  fearful  accusations  of  the 
Prophets. 

We  can  see  from  the  Prophetic  redaction  of  the 
historical  books  what  was  the  attitude  of  the  legiti- 
mate pupils  of  the  Prophets  toward  ancient  tradi- 
tion: they  would  certainly  not  have  cultivated  the 
popular  legends,  which  contained  so  much  that  was 
heathen,  but  rather  have  obliterated  them. 


142  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

In  view  of  these  considerations  we  must  conclude 
that  the  collections  took  shape  in  all  essentials 
before  the  period  of  great  Prophetic  writings,  and 
that  the  touches  of  the  spirit  of  this  movement  in  J 
and  E  but  show  that  the  thoughts  of  the  Prophets 
were  in  many  a  man's  mind  long  before  the  time  of 
Amos.  This  conclusion  is  supported  by  a  num- 
ber of  other  considerations:  the  legend  of  the 
exodus  of  Abraham,  which  glorifies  his  faith,  pre- 
sumes on  the  other  hand  the  most  flourishing  pros- 
perity of  Israel,  and  accordingly  comes  most  surely 
from  the  time  before  the  great  incursion  of  the 
Assyrians.  And  pieces  which  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  history  of  legends  are  so  late  as  chapter 
15,  or  as  the  story  of  the  birth  of  the  sons  of  Jacob, 
contain,  on  the  other  hand,  very  ancient  religious 
motives. 

But  this  does  not  exclude  the  possibility  that  cer- 
tain of  the  very  latest  portions  of  the  collections  are 
in  the  true  sense  "Prophetic."  Thus  Abraham's 
conversation  with  God  before  Sodom  is  in  its  con- 
tent the  treatment  of  a  religious  problem,  but  in 
form  it  is  an  imitation  of  the  Prophetic  "expostula- 
tion" with  God.  Joshua's  farewell  (Joshua  xxiv.) 
with  its  unconcealed  distrust  of  Israel's  fidelity  is 
also  in  form  an  imitation  of  the  Prophetic  sermon. 
In  the  succeeding  books,  especially  the  portions  due 
to  E,  there  is  probably  more  of  the  same  character, 
but  in  Genesis  the  instances  are  rare. 

Accordingly  we  may  locate  both  collections  before 
the  appearance  of  the  great  Prophets,  J  perhaps  in 
the  ninth  century  and  E  in  the  first  half  of  the 
eighth;  but  it  must  be  emphasized  that  such  dates 
are  after  all  very  uncertain. 


THE  LA  TER  COLLECTIONS.  U3 


THE  JEHOVIST  REDACTOR. 

The  two  collections  were  united  later  by  an  editor 
designated  as  RJE,  whom,  following  Wellhausen's 
example,  we  shall  call  the  "Jehovist."  This  union 
of  the  two  older  sources  took  place  before  the  addi- 
tion of  the  later  book  of  legends  to  be  referred  to  as 
P.  We  may  place  this  collector  somewhere  near 
the  end  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah.  RJE  manifests 
in  Genesis  the  most  extraordinary  conservatism  and 
reverence;  he  has  expended  a  great  amount  of  keen- 
ness in  trying  to  retain  both  sources  so  far  as  pos- 
sible and  to  establish  the  utmost  possible  harmony 
between  them.  In  general  he  probably  took  the 
more  detailed  source  for  his  basis,  in  the  story  of 
Abraham  J.  He  himself  appears  with  his  own  lan- 
guage very  little  in  Genesis.  We  recognise  his  pen 
with  certainty  in  a  few  brief  additions  which  are 
intended  to  harmonise  the  variants  of  J  and  E,  but 
of  which  there  are  relatively  few:  xvi.  9  f . ;  xxviii. 
2ib,  and  further  in  xxxi.  49  ff . ;  xxxix.  1;  xli.  50; 
xlv.  19;  xlvi.  1;  1.  11;  and  several  points  in  xxxiv; 
but  the  most  of  these  instances  are  trifles. 

Furthermore,  there  are  certain,  mostly  rather 
brief,  additions,  which  we  may  locate  in  this  period 
and  probably  attribute  to  this  redactor  or  to  his  con- 
temporaries. Some  of  them  merely  run  over  and 
deepen  the  delicate  lines  of  the  original  text:  xviii. 
17-19;  xx.  18;  xxii.  15-18;  some  are  priestly  elabo- 
rations of  profane  narratives:  xiii.  14-17;  xxxii. 
10-13;  the  most  of  them  are  speeches  attributed  to 
God;  xiii.  14-17;  xvi.  9  and  10;  xviii.  17-19;  xxii. 
15-18;  xxvi.  31,-5,  24,  25^;  xxviii.  14;  xlvi.  3./? 
(xxxii.    10-13;    1.    247);  which    is   characteristic   for 


144  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

these  latest  additions,  which  profess  only  to  give 
thoughts  and  not  stories,  speeches  containing  espe- 
cially solemn  promises  for  Israel:  that  it  was  to 
become  a  mighty  nation  and  take  possession  of  "all 
these  lands."  Incidentally  all  the  people  are 
enumerated  which  Israel  is  to  conquer:  xv.  19-21;  x. 
16-18.  These  additions  come  from  the  period 
when  the  great  world  crises  were  threatening  the 
existence  of  Israel,  and  when  the  faith  of  the  people 
was  clinging  to  these  promises,  that  is  to  say,  prob- 
ably from  the  Chaldsean  period.  Here  and  there 
we  meet  a  trace  of  "Deuteronomistic"  style:  xviii. 
17-19;  xxvi.  3„-5. 


VI. 

PRIESTLY  CODEX  AND  FINAL 
REDACTION. 

BESIDES  those  already  treated  we  find  evidence 
of  another  separate  stream  of  tradition.  This 
source  is  so  distinct  from  the  other  sources  both  in 
style  and  spirit  that  in  the  great  majority  of  cases  it 
can  be  separated  from  them  to  the  very  letter.  This 
collection  also  is  not  limited  to  Genesis;  on  the  con- 
trary, the  legends  of  the  beginnings  and  of  the 
patriarchs  are  to  it  merely  a  brief  preparation  for  the 
capital  matter,  which  is  the  legislation  of  Moses. 
The  Priestly  Codex  is  of  special  importance  for  us 
because  the  entire  discussion  of  the  Old  Testament 
has  hitherto  turned  essentially  upon  its  data.  It  is 
Wellhausen's  immortal  merit  (Prolegomena^  p.  299 
ff.)  to  have  recognised  the  true  character  of  this 
source,  which  had  previously  been  considered  the 
oldest,  to  have  demonstrated  thus  the  incorrectness 
of  the  entire  general  view  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  thus  to  have  prepared  the  field  for  a  living  and 
truly  historical  understanding  of  the  history  of  the 
religion  of  Israel. 

The  style  of  P  is  extremely  peculiar,  exceedingly 
detailed  and  aiming  at  legal  clearness  and  minute- 
ness, having  always  the  same  expressions  and  for- 
mulae, with  precise  definitions  and  monotonous  set 
phrases  with  consistently  employed  outlines  which 

145 


146  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

lack  substance,  with  genealogies  and  with  titles 
over  every  chapter.  It  is  the  tone  of  prosaic 
pedantry,  often  indeed  the  very  style  of  the  legal 
document  (for  instance  xi.  u;  and  xxiii.  17,  18); 
occasionally,  however,  it  is  not  without  a  certain 
solemn  dignity  (especially  in  Genesis  i.  and  else- 
where also,  cp.  the  scene  xlvii.  7-1 1).  One  must 
really  read  the  whole  material  of  P  consecutively  in 
order  to  appreciate  the  dryness  and  monotony  of 
this  remarkable  book.  The  author  is  evidently 
painfully  exact  and  exemplary  in  his  love  of  order, 
but  appreciation  of  poetry  was  denied  him  as  to 
many  another  scholar. 

The  selection  of  material  both  in  large  and  in 
small  matters  is  highly  characteristic  in  P.  The 
only  stories  of  any  length  which  he  gives  us  are  those 
of  the  Creation  and  the  Deluge,  of  God's  appear- 
ance to  Abraham  and  of  the  purchase  of  the  cave  at 
Machpelah;  all  else  is  details  and  genealogies. 
From  by  far  the  greatest  number  of  narratives  he 
found  use  only  for  separate  and  disconnected  obser- 
vations. One  has  only  to  compare  the  ancient 
variegated  and  poetic  legends  and  the  scanty  reports 
which  P  gives  of  them,  in  order  to  learn  where  his 
interests  lie:  he  does  not  purpose  to  furnish  a  poetic 
narrative,  as  those  of  old  had  done,  but  only  to 
arrive  at  the  facts.  This  is  why  he  was  unable  to 
use  the  many  individual  traits  contained  in  the  old 
legends,  but  merely  took  from  them  a  very  few 
facts.  He  ignored  the  sentiments  of  the  legends, 
he  did  not  see  the  personal  life  of  the  patriarchs; 
their  figures,  once  so  concrete,  have  become  mere 
pale  types  when  seen  through  his  medium.  In 
times  of  old  many  of  these  legends  had  been  located 


CODEX  AND  FINAL  REDACTION.  147 

in  definite  places,  thereby  gaining  life  and  color;  P 
has  forgotten  all  but  two  places:  the  cave  of  Mach- 
pelah,  where  the  patriarchs  dwelt  and  lie  buried,  and 
Bethel,  where  God  revealed  himself  to  Jacob.  „Qn 
the  other  hand,  he  has  a  great  predilection  for 
genealogies,  .which,  as  we  have  seen,  were  the  latest 
elements  to  be  contributed  to  the  accumulation  of 
the  legend,  and  which  are  in  their  very  nature 
unconcrete  and  unpoetical.  A  very  large  portion 
of  P's  share  in  Genesis  is  genealogy  and  nothing 
more. 

Even  those  narratives  which  are  told  by  P  at 
length  manifest  this  same  lack  of  color.  They  are 
narratives  that  are  not  really  stories.  The  account 
of  the  purchase  of  the  cave  of  Machpelah  might 
have  been  nothing  but  an  incidental  remark  in  one 
of  the  older  story-tellers;  P  has  spun  it  out  at  length 
because  he  wanted  to  establish  as  beyond  all  doubt 
the  fact  that  the  cave  really  belonged  to  the  patriarchs 
and  was  an  ancestral  sepulcher.  But  he  had  not  the 
poetic  power  necessary  to  shape  the  account  into  a 
story.  In  the  great  affairs  of  state  which  P  gives 
instead  of  the  old  stories,  story-telling  has  ceased, 
there  is  only  talking  and  negotiating  (Wellhausen). 
Even  the  accounts  of  the  Creation,  the  Deluge 
and  the  Covenant  with  Abraham  manifest  a  wide 
contrast  with  the  vivid  colors  of  the  older  legends; 
they  lack  greatly  in  the  concrete  elements  of  a 
story.  Instead  of  this  P  gives  in  them  something 
else,  something  altogether  alien  to  the  spirit  of  the 
early  legend,  to  wit,  legal  ordinances,  and  these  in 
circumstantial  detail.  Another  characteristic  of  P 
is  his  pronounced  liking  for  outlines;  this  order-lov- 
ing man  has  ensnared  the  gay  legends  of  the  olden 


148  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

time  in  his  gray  outlines,  and  there  they  have  lost 
all  their  poetic  freshness:  take  as  an  illustration  the 
genealogy  of  Adam  and  Seth.  Even  the  stories  of 
the  patriarchs  have  been  caged  by  P  in  an  outline. 

IMPORTANCE  ATTACHED  TO  CHRONOLOGY. 

Furthermore  P  attaches  to  the  legends  a  detailed 
chronology,  which  plays  a  great  role  in  his  account, 
but  is  absolutely  out  of  keeping  with  the  simplicity 
of  the  old  legends.  Chronology  belongs  by  its  very 
nature  to  history,  not  to  legend.  Where  historical 
narrative  and  legend  exist  as  living  literary  species, 
they  are  recognised  as  distinct,  even  though  uncon- 
sciously. This  confusion  of  the  two  species  in  P 
shows  that  in  his  time  the  natural  appreciation  for 
both  history  and  legend  had  been  lost.  Accord- 
ingly it  is  not  strange  that  the  chronology  of  P  dis- 
plays everywhere  the  most  absurd  oddities  when 
injected  into  the  old  legends:  as  a  result,  Sarah  is 
still  at  sixty-five  a  beautiful  woman  whom  the 
Egyptians  seek  to  capture,  and  Ishmael  is  carried 
on  his  mother's  shoulder  after  he  is  a  youth  of  six- 
teen. 

There  has  been  added  a  great  division  of  the 
world's  history  into  periods,  which  P  forces  upon 
the  whole  matter  of  his  account.  He  recognises 
four  periods:  from  the  creation  to  Noah,  from 
Noah  to  Abraham,  from  Abraham  to  Moses,  and 
from  Moses  on.  Each  of  these  periods  begins 
with  a  theophany,  and  twice  a  new  name  for  God 
is  introduced.  He  who  is  Elohim  at  the  crea- 
tion is  El  Shaddai  in  connexion  with  Abraham  and 
Jahveh  to  Moses.  At  the  establishment  of  the 
Covenant  certain  divine  ordinances  are  proclaimed: 


CODEX  AND  FINAL  REDACTION.  149 

first,  that  men  and  beasts  are  to  eat  only  herbs,  and 
then,  after  the  Deluge,  that  flesh  may  be  eaten  but 
no  men  be  slain,  and  then,  especially  for  Abraham, 
that  he  and  his  descendants  shall  circumcise  them- 
selves; finally,  the  Mosaic  law. 

In  connexion  with  these,  certain  definite  divine 
promises  are  made  and  signs  of  the  Covenant  given. 
What  we  find  in  this  is  the  product  of  a  great  and 
universal  mind,  the  beginning  of  a  universal  history 
in  the  grand  style,  and  indeed  P  shows  a  genuinely 
scientific  mind  in  other  points:  consider,  for 
instance,  his  precision  in  the  order  of  creation  in 
Genesis  i.  and  his  definitions  there.  But  the 
material  of  the  legends  which  this  grandiose  uni- 
versal history  uses  stands  in  very  strong  contrast 
with  the  history  itself:  the  signs  of  the  Covenant 
are  a  rainbow,  circumcision  and  the  Sabbath,  a  very 
remarkable  list!  And  how  remote  is  this  spirit  of 
universal  history,  which  even  undertakes  to  esti- 
mate the  duration  of  the  entire  age  of  the  world, 
from  the  spirit  of  the  old  legend,  which  originally 
consists  of  only  a  single  story  that  is  never  able  to 
rise  to  the  height  of  such  general  observations:  in  J, 
for  instance,  we  hear  nothing  of  the  relation  of 
Abraham's  religion  to  that  of  his  fathers  and  his 
tribal  kinsmen. 

THE  RELIGIOUS  VIEWS  OF  THE  PRIESTLY  CODEX. 

Furthermore,  we  cannot  deny  that  this  reflexion 
of  P's,  that  Jahveh  first  revealed  himself  in  quite  a 
general  form  as  "God,"  and  then  in  a  concreter 
form  as  El  Shaddai,  and  only  at  the  last  under  his 
real  name,  is,  after  all,  very  childish:  the  real  his- 
tory of  religion  does  not  begin  with  the  general  and 


150  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

then  pass  to  the  concrete,  but  on  the  contrary,  it 
begins  with  the  very  most  concrete  conceptions,  and 
only  slowly  and  gradually  do  men  learn  to  compre- 
hend what  is  abstract. 

It  is  characteristic  of  the  religion  of  the  author 
P  that  he  says  almost  nothing  about  the  personal 
piety  of  the  patriarchs;  he  regards  only  the  objec- 
tive as  important  in  religion.  For  instance,  he  says 
nothing  about  Abraham's  obedience  on  faith;  indeed 
does  not  hesitate  to  report  that  Abraham  laughed  at 
God's  promise  (xvii.  17).  The  religion  that  he 
knows  consists  in  the  prescription  of  ceremonies; 
he  regards  it  of  importance  that  the  Sabbath  shall 
be  observed,  that  circumcision  shall  be  practised, 
that  certain  things  shall  be  eaten  and  others  not. 
In  such  matters  he  is  very  scrupulous.  He  abstains, 
evidently  with  deliberation,  from  telling  that  the 
patriarchs  offered  sacrifice  in  any  certain  place,  and 
this  evidently  for  the  reason  that  these  places  were 
regarded  as  heathenish  in  his  time..  Similarly,  in 
his  account  of  the  Deluge,  he  does  not  distinguish 
the  clean  and  the  unclean  beasts.  It  is  his  opinion 
that  established  worship  and  the  distinction  of  clean 
and  unclean  were  not  introduced  until  the  time  of 
Mose,s, 

But  in  this  we  hear  the  voice  of  a  priest  of  Jeru- 
salem, whose  theory  is  that  the'  worship  at  his  sanc- 
tuary is  the  only  legitimate  worship  and  the 
continuation  of  the  worship  instituted  by  Moses. 
The  Israelitish  theocracy — this,  in  modern  phrase, 
is  the  foundation  thought  of  his  work — is  the  pur- 
pose of  the  world.  God  created  the  world  in  order 
that  his  ordinances  and  commandments  might  be 
observed  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem. 


CODEX  AND  FINAL  REDACTION.  151 

The  theophanies  of  P  are  characterised  by  their 
inconcreteness;  he  tells  only  that  God  appeared, 
spoke,  and  again  ascended,  and  leaves  out  every- 
thing else.  In  this,  then,  he  follows  the  style  of  the 
latest  additions  to  JE,  which  also  contain  such 
speeches  attributed  to  God  without  any  introduc- 
tion. It  is  evident  that  in  this  there  is  expressed  a 
religious  hesitation  on  the  part  of  P  to  involve  the 
supermundane  God  with  the  things  of  this  world; 
it  seems  as  though  he  suspected  the  heathen  origin 
of  these  theophanies.  At  the  same  time  we  per- 
ceive what  his  positive  interest  is:  he  cares  for  the 
content  of  the  divine  revelation,  but  not  for  its 
"How."  Moreover,  it  is  no  accident  that  he  con- 
ceives of  these  speeches  of  God  as  "covenant-mak- 
ing": evidently  he  has  in  mind  this  originally  legal 
form.  This  union  of  the  priest,  the  scholar,  and 
the  distinctive  lawyer,  which  seems  to  us  perhaps 
remarkable  at  first,  is  after  all  quite  natural:  among 
many  ancient  races  the  priesthood  was  the  guardian 
of  learning  and  especially  of  the  law.  And  thus  it 
surely  was  in  Israel  too,  where  from  primitive  times 
the  priests  were  accustomed  to  settle  difficult  dis- 
putes. P  developed  his  style  in  the  writing  of  con- 
tracts— this  is  quite    evident  in  many  places. 

But  it  is  especially  characteristic  of  P  that  he  no 
longer  refers  to  the  sacred  symbols,  which  had  once 
possessed  such  great  importance  for  the  ancient 
religion,  as  may  be  seen  particularly  in  the  legends 
of  the  patriarchs;  in  him  we  no  longer  find  a  refer- 
ence to  the  monuments,  the  trees  and  groves,  and 
the  springs  at  which,  according  to  the  ancient 
legends,  the  divinity  appeared.  P  has  expunged 
all  such  matter  from  the  legend,  evidently  because 


152  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

he  considered  it  heathenish.  Here  we  see  plainly 
the  after-effects  of  the  fearful  polemics  of  the 
Prophets:  it  is  the  same  spirit  which  branded  the 
ancient  sacred  place  of  Bethel  as  heathen  (in  the 
"reform"  of  Josiah)  and  which  here  rejects  from  the 
ancient  legends  everything  that  smacks  of  heathen- 
ism to  these  children  of  a  later  time. 

This  much,  then,  is  certain,  that  the  conceptions 
of  God  in  P  are  loftier  and  more  advanced  than 
those  of  the  old  legends;  and  yet  P  is  far  below 
these  older  authors,  who  had  not  made  the  acquaint- 
ance of  the  sacerdotalism  of  Jerusalem,  but  who  did 
know  what  piety  is.  Just  as  P  purified  the  religion 
of  the  patriarchs,  so  did  he  also  purge  their 
morality.  Here,  too,  P  adds  the  last  word  to  a 
development  which  we  have  followed  up  in  J  and  E. 
The  old  legends  of  the  patriarchs,  being  an  expres- 
sion of  the  most  primitive  life  of  the  people,  con- 
tained a  great  deal  that  those  of  a  later  time  could 
not  but  regard  as  wrong  and  sinful,  if  they  were 
quite  honest  about  it. 

And  yet,  the  belief  of  the  time  was  that  the 
patriarchs  were  models  of  piety  and  virtue.  What 
pains  had  been  taken  to  eliminate  at  least  the  most 
offensive  things  in  this  line  so  far  as  possible! 
When  it  comes  to  P  at  last,  he  makes  a  clean  sweep: 
he  simply  omits  altogether  what  is  offensive  (for 
instance,  the  quarrel  of  the  shepherds  of  Abraham 
and  Lot,  Lot's  selfishness,  the  exile  of  Ishmael, 
Jacob's  deceptions);  he  even  goes  to  the  length  of 
maintaining  the  precise  contrary  to  the  tradition: 
Ishmael  and  Isaac  together  peacefully  buried  their 
father  (xxv.  9),  and  so  did  Jacob  and  Esau  (xxxv. 
29).     Facts  which  cannot  be  obliterated  receive  a 


CODEX  AND  FINAL  REDACTION.  153 

different  motivation:  thus  he  explains  Isaac's  bless- 
ing of  Jacob  as  a  result  of  Esau's  sinful  mixed  mar- 
riages (xxvi.  34  f. ;  xxviii.  I  ff.),  and  he  lays  the 
crime  against  Joseph  at  the  door  of  the  sons  of 
Bilhah  and  Zilpah  (xxxvii.  2). 

From  all  of  this  it  appears  clear  that  P  dealt  very 
arbitrarily  with  the  tradition  as  it  came  down  to  him. 
He  dropped  old  versions  or  changed  them  at  pleas- 
ure; mere  incidents  he  spun  out  to  complete 
stories,  and  from  whole  stories  he  adopted  only  inci- 
dents; he  mingled  the  motives  of  various  legends, 
declaring,  for  instance,  that  the  blessing  received  by 
Jacob  from  Isaac  was  the  blessing  of  Abraham, 
which  had  been  entirely  foreign  to  the  thought  of 
the  old  story-tellers  (xxviii.  4;  other  instances  may 
be  found  pp.  237,  247,  350  of  the  Co?nmc?itary) ; 
from  the  stories  of  the  old  tradition,  which  stood  in 
loose  juxtaposition,  he  formed  a  continuous  nar- 
rative with  close  connexion, — this,  too,  a  mark  of 
the  latest  period.  In  place  of  the  legends  he  placed 
his  chapters  with  regular  headings! 

This  narrator,  then,  has  no  conception  of  the 
fidelity  of  the  older  authors;  he  probably  had  an 
impression  that  it  was  necessary  to  lay  on  vigorously 
in  order  to  erect  a  structure  worthy  of  God.  The 
older  authors,  J  and  E,  were  really  not  authors,  but 
merely  collectors,  while  P  is  a  genuine  author;  the 
former  merely  accumulated  the  stone  left  to  them 
in  a  loose  heap;  but  P  erected  a  symmetrical  struc- 
ture in  accordance  with  his  own  taste.  And  yet  we 
should  be  wrong  if  we  should  assume  that  he 
deliberately  invented  his  allegations  in  Genesis; 
tradition  was  too  strong  to  permit  even  him  to  do 
this.     On  the  contrary,  he  simply  worked  over  the 


154  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

material,  though  very  vigorously  indeed;  we  can 
often  recognise  by  details  how  he  followed  his 
source  in  the  general  outline  of  events  when  no  per- 
sonal interest  of  his  own  was  involved  (see  p.  139  of 
the  Commentary).  But  this  source,  at  least  for 
Genesis,  was  neither  J  nor  E  but  one  related  to 
them. 

THE  AGE  OF  THE   PRIESTLY  CODEX. 

After  this  portrayal  of  the  situation  the  age  of  P 
is  evident.  It  belongs  by  every  evidence  at  the 
close  of  the  whole  history  of  the  tradition,  and  cer- 
tainly separated  by  a  great  gap  from  J  and  E:  the 
living  stream  of  legend  from  which  J  and  E,  the  old 
collectors,  had  dipped,  must  by  that  time  have  run 
dry,  if  it  had  become  possible  for  P  to  abuse  it  in 
this  fashion  for  the  construction  of  his  history. 
And  in  the  meanwhile  a  great  intellectual  revolution 
must  have  taken  place, — a  revolution  which  had 
created  something  altogether  new  in  the  place  of 
the  old  nationality  represented  in  the  legends. 

P  is  the  documentary  witness  of  a  time  which  was 
consciously  moving  away  from  the  old  traditions, 
and  which  believed  it  necessary  to  lay  the  founda- 
tions of  religion  in  a  way  differing  from  that  of  the 
fathers.  And  in  P  we  have  revealed  the  nature  of 
this  new  element  which  had  then  assumed  sway, — it 
is  the  spirit  of  the  learned  priest  that  we  here  find 
expressed.  Furthermore,  this  also  is  clear  to  us 
from  the  whole  manner  of  P,  and  particularly  from 
his  formal  language,  that  we  have  not  here  the  work 
of  an  individual  with  a  special  tendency,  but  of  a 
whole  group  whose  convictions  he  expresses.  P's 
work  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  an  official 
utterance. 


CODEX  AND  FINAL  REDACTION  155 

It  is  the  priesthood  of  Jerusalem  with  which  the 
document  P  originated.  Hence  the  applicableness 
of  the  designation  "Priestly  Codex."  Wellhausen 
has  revealed  to  us  the  time  to  which  this  spirit 
belonged.  This  is  the  epoch  following  the  great 
catastrophe  to  the  people  and  the  state  of  Judah, 
when  the  people,  overwhelmed  by  the  tremendous 
impression  of  their  measureless  misfortune,  recog- 
nised that  their  fathers  had  sinned,  and  that  a  great 
religious  reformation  was  necessary.  Only  in  con- 
nexion with  this  period  can  we  comprehend  P  with 
his  grandiose  want  of  respect  for  what  had  been  the 
most  sacred  traditions  of  his  people.  We  know  also 
well  enough  that  it  was  the  priesthood  alone  in  that 
day  which  held  its  own  and  kept  the  people 
together  after  all  other  authorities  had  worn  them- 
selves out  or  perished:  after  its  restoration  the  con- 
gregation of  Judah  was  under  the  dominion  of 
priests. 

In  keeping  with  this  period  also  is  the  remarkably 
developed  historical  scholarship  of  P.  The  older 
epoch  had  produced  excellent  story-tellers,  but  no 
learned  historians;  while  in  this  period  of  exile 
Judaean  historiography  had  lost  its  naive  innocence. 
Under  the  powerful  influence  of  the  superior  Baby- 
lonian civilisation  Judaism  also  had  acquired  a  taste 
for  precise  records  of  numbers  and  measures.  It 
now  grew  accustomed  to  employ  great  care  in 
statistical  records:  genealogical  tables  were  copied, 
archives  were  searched  for  authentic  documents, 
chronological  computations  were  undertaken,  and 
even  universal  history  was  cultivated  after  the 
Babylonian  model.  In  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  and 
Chronicles  we  see  the  same  historical  scholarship  as 


156  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

in  P,  and  in  Ezekiel,  Haggai,  and  Zechariah  the  same 
high  value  placed  upon  exact  chronology.  The 
reckoning  of  the  months  also,  which  is  found  in  P, 
was  learned  by  the  Jews  at  this  time,  and  probably 
from  Babylonia.  The  progress  represented  by  this 
learned  spirit  as  compared  with  the  simplicity  of 
former  times  is  undeniable,  even  though  the  prod- 
ucts of  this  learning  often  fail  to  appeal  to  us.  It  is 
probably  characteristic  of  the  beginnings  of  "uni- 
versal history"  that  such  first  great  historical 
constructions  as  we  have  in  P  deal  largely  with  myth- 
ical or  legendary  materials,  and  are  consequently 
inadequate  according  to  our  modern  notions.  In 
this  respect  P  may  be  compared  to  Berosus. 

The  emphasis  laid  by  P  upon  the  Sabbath,  the 
prohibition  of  bloodshed  and  circumcision,  is  also 
comprehensible  to  us  in  the  light  of  this  period:  the 
epoch  in  which  everything  depended  on  the  willing- 
ness of  the  individual  emphasised  the  religious  com- 
mandments which  applied  to  the  individual.  Indeed 
it  may  be  said,  that  the  piety  of  the  patriarchs,  who 
are  always  represented  as  gerim  (strangers),  and 
who  have  to  get  along  without  sacrifices  and  formal 
ceremonies,  is  a  reflexion  of  the  piety  of  the  exile, 
when  those  who  lived  in  the  foreign  land  had 
neither  temples  nor  sacrifices. 

P's  religious  criticism  of  mixed  marriages  also, 
especially  those  with  Canaanitish  women,  whereby 
the  blessing  of  Abraham  was  forfeited  (xxviii.  1-9) 
connect  with  the  same  time,  when  the  Jews,  living 
in  the  Dispersion,  had  no  more  zealous  desire  than 
to  keep  their  blood  and  their  religion  pure. 

Much  more  characteristic  than  these  evidences 
taken  from  Genesis  are  the  others  derived  from  the 


CODEX  AND  FINAL  REDACTION.  157 

legal  sections  of  the  following  books.  Finally 
there  is  to  be  added  to  all  these  arguments  the  late 
origin  of  the  style  of  P1.  And  in  accordance  with 
this  the  fixing  of  the  date  of  P  as  coming  from  the 
time  of  the  exile  is  one  of  the  surest  results  of 
criticism. 

We  need  not  attempt  to  determine  here  in  just 
what  century  P  wrote;  but  this  much  may  be  said, 
that  the  Law-book  of  Ezra,  in  the  opinion  of  many 
scholars,  upon  which  the  congregation  took  the  oath 
in  444,  and  in  the  composition  of  which  Ezra  was  in 
some  way  involved,  was  P.  Hence  we  may  place 
the  composition  of  the  book  in  the  period  from  500 
to  444.  P,  too,  was  not  completed  all  at  once, 
though  this  is  hardly  a  matter  of  importance  so  far 
as  Genesis  goes 

THE  FINAL  REDACTOR. 

The  final  redactor,  who  combined  the  older  work 
qf_JE  and  P,  and  designated  as  RJEP,  probably 
belongs,  therefore,  to  the  time  after  Ezra,  and  surely 
before  the  time  of  the  separation  of  the  Samaritan 
congregation,  which  carried  the  complete  Pentateuch 
along  with  it — though  we  are  unable,  indeed,  to  give 
the  exact  date  of  this  event.  The  fact  that  such  a 
combination  of  the  older  and  the  later  collections 
was  necessary  shows  us  that  the  old  legends  had 
been  planted  too  deep  in  the  popular  heart  to  be 
supplanted  by  the  new  spirit. 

Great  historical  storms  had  in  the  meantime 
desecrated   the   old   sacred  places;    the  whole  past 

1  Wellhausen,  Prologomena,  p.  393,  ff.  Ryssel,  De  elohistce 
pentatcuchici  sermone,  1S78.  Giesebrecht,  ZA  IV,  1881,  p. 
177  ff.     Driver,  Journal  of  Philology,  1882,  p.  201  ff. 


158  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

seemed  to  the  men  of  the  new  time  to  be  sinful. 
And  yet  the  old  legends  which  glorified  these  places 
and  which  gave  such  a  naive  reflexion  of  the  olden 
time,  could  not  be  destroyed.  The  attempt  of  P  to 
supplant  the  older  tradition  had  proven  a  failure; 
accordingly  a  reverent  hand  produced  a  combina- 
tion of  JE  and  P. 

This  last  collection  was  prepared  with  extraor- 
dinary fidelity,  especially  toward  P;  its  author  aimed 
if  possible  not  to  lose  a  single  grain  of  P's  work. 
We  shall  not  blame  him  for  preferring  P  to  JE,  for 
P  never  ceased  to  dominate  Jewish  taste.  Espe- 
cially notable  is  the  fact  that  the  redactor  applied 
the  chronology  of  P  as  a  framework  for  the  narratives 
of  J  and  E.  In  Genesis  there  are  a  very  few  features 
which  we  can  trace  with  more  or  less  certainty  to 
his  hand:  such  are  a  few  harmonising  comments  or 
elaborations  like  x.  24;  xv.  7,  8,  15;  xxvii.  46; 
xxxv.  13,  14;  and  further  some  retouching  in  vi.  7; 
vii.  7,  22,  23;  and  also  vii.  3a,  8,  9;  and  finally  the 
distinction  between  Abram  and  Abraham,  Sarai  and 
Sarah,  which  is  also  found  in  J  and  E,  and  some 
other  matters. 

We  have  now  covered  the  activities  of  all  the 
various  redactors  of  Genesis.  But  in  smaller  details 
the  work  on  the  text  (Diaskeuase)  continues  for  a 
long  time.  Smaller  alterations  are  to  be  found  in 
xxxiv.  and  in  the  numbers  of  the  genealogies,  in 
which  the  Jewish  and  the  Samaritan  text,  and  the 
Greek  translation  differ.  More  considerable  altera- 
tions were  made  in  xxxvi.  and  xlvi.  8-27;  while  the 
last  large  interpolation  is  the  narrative  of  Abra- 
ham's victory  over  the  four  kings,  a  legend  from 
very  late  times,  and  of  "midrash"  character. 


CODEX  AND  FINAL  REDACTION.  159 

SUMMARY. 

Thus  Genesis  has  been  compounded  from  very- 
many  sources.  And  in  the  last  state  we  have 
described  it  has  remained.  In  this  form  the  old 
legends  have  exercised  an  incalculable  influence 
upon  all  succeeding  generations.  We  may  perhaps 
regret  that  the  last  great  genius  who  might  have 
created  out  of  the  separate  stories  a  great  whole,  a 
real  "Israelitic  national  epic,"  never  came.  Israel 
produced  no  Homer.  But  this  is  fortunate  for  our 
investigation;  for  just  because  the  individual  por- 
tions have  been  left  side  by  side  and  in  the  main 
unblended  it  is  possible  for  us  to  make  out  the  his- 
tory of  the  entire  process.  For  this  reason  students 
of  the  legend  should  apply  themselves  to  the  inves- 
tigation of  Genesis,  which  has  not  been  customary 
hitherto;  while  theologians  should  learn  that 
Genesis  is  not  to  be  understood  without  the  aid  of 
the  proper  methods  for  the  study  of  legends. 

HOW  GENESIS  CAME  TO  BE   ATTRIBUTED  TO  MOSES. 

One  word  more,  in  closing,  as  to  how  Genesis  has 
obtained  the  undeserved  honor  of  being  regarded  as 
a  work  of  Moses.  From  primitive  times  there 
existed  a  tradition  in  Israel  that  the  divine  ordi- 
nances regarding  worship,  law  and  morality,  as 
proclaimed  by  the  mouth  of  the  priests,  were 
derived  from  Moses.  When,  then,  these  ordi- 
nances, which  had  originally  circulated  orally,  were 
written  down  in  larger  or  smaller  works,  it  was 
natural  that  they  passed  under  the  name  of  Moses 
Now  our  Pentateuch  consists,  in  addition  to  the  col- 
lections of  legends,  of  such  books  of  law  from  various 
periods  and   of  very  diverse    spirit.     And  because 


160  THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 

the  legends  also,  from  the  time  of  the  Exodus,  have 
to  do  chiefly  with  Moses,  it  was  very  easy  to  com- 
bine both  legends  and  laws  in  one  single  book. 
Thus  it  happened  that  Genesis  has  become  the  first 
part  of  a  work  whose  following  parts  tell  chiefly  of 
Moses  and  contain  many  laws  that  claim  to  come 
from  Moses.  But  in  its  contents  Genesis  has  no 
connexion  with  Moses.  These  narratives,  among 
them  so  many  of  a  humorous,  an  artistic,  or  a  senti- 
mental character,  are  very  remote  from  the  spirit  of 
such  a  strenuous  and  wrathful  Titan  as  Moses, 
according  to  the  tradition,  must  have  been. 


INDEX. 


Abel,  49  et  seq.,  64  et  seq.,  91,  107. 

Abimelech,  20,  35,  63,  79,  115. 

Abraham,  5,  9,  19  et  seq.,  33  et  seq., 
42  et  seq.,  49  et  seq.,  60  et  seq.,  69 
et  seq.,  95,  107  et  seq.,  112  et  seq., 
115  et  seq.,  120,  122,  128,  132,  134  et 
seq.,  140,  142,  147,  152- 

Absalom,  10. 

Actions,  thought  expressed  by,  60. 

Adam  60,  148. 

Adonis,  121. 

Amalgamation,  mode  of,  96. 

Amnion,  19  et  seq.,  45. 

Amos,  85. 

Anthropomorphism,  8. 

Aramaic  influences,  91  et  seq. 

Ararat,  7. 

Arthurian  poems,  38. 

Asshur  (Assyria),  19,  ng,  138. 

Babel,   14,  16,  17,  29,  44  et  seq.,  50  et 

seq.,  77,  go. 
Babylonian  influences,  90  et  seq.,  155. 
Baucis,  94. 
Beersheba,  29,  35,  99. 
Benjamin,  50,  83,  112,  121. 
Berosus,  156. 

Bethel,  31  et  seq.,  41,  92,  105. 
Budde,  125. 

Canaan,  55,  90, 

Cain,  14,  20  et  seq.,  29,  49  et  seq.,  65 
et  seq.,  91  et  seq.,  97,  107,  128. 

Caution,  needed  in  interpretation, 
120. 

Ceremonials,  religious,  30. 

Characters  in  the  Legends,  descrip- 
tion of,  53. 


l6l 


Chronological  periods,  four,  148. 

Chronology,  exact,   156;  importance 
attached  to,  148. 

Circumcision,  31,  156. 

Codex,  Priestly,  124   et   seq.,   145   et 
seq.,  149  et  seq.,  154. 

Collection,  process  of,  129;  its  rela- 
tion to  the  prophets,  139  et  seq. 

Collections,  the  later,  123  et  seq. 

Collectors,  their  relation  to  their 
sources,  130. 

Connecticut,  28. 

Cornill,  139. 

Covenant,  85,  147,  148,  149. 

Creation;  17,  49,  74,  97,  146  et  seq. 

David,  5,  138. 

Daniel,  100. 

Dead  Sea,  7,  34. 

Deborah,  101. 

Deluge,  7,  10,  15,  16,  17,  44,  50  et  seq., 

76,  90,  95,  i03et  seq.,  no,  146  et  seq. 
Deuteronomian   Reformation,   107, 

144. 
Deuteronomy,  85. 
Dinah,  20,  35,  50  et  seq.,  93,  126. 
Divinity,  its  action  in  the  primitive 

legends,  14  ;  the  sanctuary  and,  105 

et  seq. 
Driver,  157. 

Economy  of  details,  67  et  seq. 
Eden,  44,  71,  49  et  seq. 
Edom,  ig,  119,  138. 
Egyptian  influences,  91. 
Egyptian  names  in  Genesis,  139. 
Elohist  and  Jahvist,  123  et  seq.;  col- 
lectors not  authors,  124  et  seq.;  re- 


162 


THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 


lation  of  to  one  another,  133  ;  age  of 

the  schools,  136  et  seq. 
Enoch,  95. 
Ephraim,  21. 
Epic  discursiveness,  82. 
Epic,  Israelitic  national,  159. 
Esau,  19  et  seq.,  42  et  seq.,  49  et  seq., 

57  et  seq.,  63,  80  et  seq.,  91,  94,  95' 

114.  134.  152- 
Esther,  120. 
Etana,  121. 
Etymologies,  in  Genesis,  8;  popular, 

28;  subordinate  features,  77. 
Euphrates,  7. 
Evangelical  churches,  12. 
Eye-witness  and  reporter,  5. 
Ezra,  Book  of,  157. 

Flood.     See  Deluge. 
Foreign  influences,  88. 

Gad,  119. 

Genesis,  history  or  legend?  I  et  seq.; 
not  political  history,  5 ;  many  things 
reported  in  the  book  which  go  di- 
rectly against  our  better  knowl- 
edge, 7;  its  narratives  mostly  of  a 
religious  nature,  8 ;  God  in,  9, 13  et 
seq.;  closely  related  to  other  cos- 
mogonies, 10;  varieties  of  legends 
in,  13  et  seq.;  sources  of,  23  ;  prose 
in  form,  36;  a  folk-book,  39;  con- 
tents of,  in  primitive  form,  40;  real 
unit  in,  42;  no  nature-love  in,  67; 
Egyptian  names  in,  139;  genealogy 
in,  147 ;  compounded  from  very 
many  sources,  159;  how  it  came  to 
be  attributed  to  Moses,  159. 

Gerar,  20,  102,  126. 

Gibeah,  96. 

Gilead,  96,  127. 

Giesebrecht,  157. 

God,  64,  88  ;  in  Genesis,  9,  13  et  seq.; 
His  relation  to  man,  107  et  seq.;  not 
merely  a  tribal  God,  109. 

Goldziher,  121. 

Greek  parallels,  93. 


Ham,  20  et  seq. 

Hagar,  19,  34,  42  et  seq.,  49  et  seq.,  61 


et  seq.,  70  et  seq.,  79,  102,  105,  112  et 

seq.,  116,  126. 
Hebron,  45,  79  et  seq.,  95,  105,  132. 
Helal,  15. 
Hippolytus,  94. 
Hirah,  53. 

Historiography,  Judsean;  155. 
History,  the  writing  of,  1  et  seq. 
History  and  legend,  criteria  for,  3  et 

seq. 
Holzinger,  135. 
Homer,  84,  159. 
Hyrieus,93. 

Images,  hostility  to,  140. 

Incredibility,  the  criterion  of,  7. 

Interest,  different  spheres  of,  in  leg- 
end and  history,  4. 

Isaac,  11,  42  et  seq.,  49  et  seq.,  58  et 
seq  ,  73  et  seq.,  95.  Io6-  IIJ>  II6'  x34. 

153. 

Ishmael,  19  et  seq.,  33  et  seq.,  35,  5L 
75  et  seq.,  91,  99.  I05.  "°>  "4.  129- 
134.' 152- 

Israel,  one  of  the  youngest  in  the 
group  to  which  it  belongs,  6;  his- 
tory of,  reflected  in  its  legends,  89; 
civilisation  of  Canaan  adopted  by, 

90,  95- 
Israelitic  national  epic,  159. 

Jacob,  5,  19  etseq..  29,  33.  35.  42  et 
seq.,  49  et  seq.,  57  et  seq.,  63,  71  et 
seq.,  73  et  seq.,  80  et  seq.,  88,  91,94, 
95.  97.  99  et  seq.,  102, 107  et  seq,  113, 
116,  118,  120,  121,  126,  128,  134,  152. 
Jahveh,  92,  95,  104,  117,  127. 
Jahvist  and  Elohist,  123  et  seq.,  128; 
collectors  not  authors,  124  etseq.; 
relation  of,  to  one  another,  133; 
age  of  the  schools,  136  et  seq. 

Japhet,  20  et  seq.,  50  et  seq.,  61,  91. 

Jared,  96. 

jehovist,  123  et  seq.,  143. 

Jeremiah,  85. 

Jeruel,  75  et  seq.,  31  et  seq. 

Jerusalem,  19. 

Jesus,  3. 

Jonah,  3,  119. 

Jordan,  twelve  stones  in  the,  31. 

Joseph,  22,  35,  42  et  seq.,  56  et  seq., 


INDEX. 


163 


63  et  seq.,  71  et  seq.,  79  et  seq.,  82 
et  seq. ,  95,  99.  107,  112,  117.  120,  134. 
135.  138. 

Joshua,  142. 

Judah,  19  et  seq.,  101,  113. 

Judges,  Book  of,  24,  136. 

Kings,  Book  of,  3. 

Laban,  22,  35,  42,  52  et  seq.,  59  et  seq., 
73,  80  et  seq.,  91,  96,  111  et  seq.,  116, 
119,  126,  129. 

Lacha-roi,  32  et  seq. 

Lagarde,  139. 

Leah,  55,  57  et  seq.,  121. 

Legends,  significance  and  scope  of, 
1  et  seq.;  not  lies,  3;  criteria  for 
history  and,  3  et  seq.;  varieties  of, 
13  et  seq.;  character  of  races  in  22 
et  seq.;  antiquity  of,  23  et  seq.; 
classification  of,  24  et  seq.;  setio- 
logical,25;  ethnological,  25  et  seq.; 
the  beginnings  of  human  science, 
25;  etymological,  27  et  seq.;  the 
first  rudiments  of  a  philosophy  of 
history,  27;  ceremonial,  30  et  seq.; 
geological,  34;  mixed,  34,  35;  ori- 
gin of  the,  35,  88  et  seq.;  literary 
form  of  the,  36  et  seq.;  tranforma- 
tion  of  the,  39  et  seq.;  cycles,  45; 
length  of,  46  et  seq.;  treat  men  as 
types,  55;  laconisrn  of  the,  63  et 
seq.;  unity  and  coherence  of,  69; 
not  pure  inventions,  74  ;  two  styles 
of,  86;  development  of  the,  88  et 
seq.;  migration  of,  89  et  seq.;  reli- 
gious, not  Israelistic,  91;  of  wor- 
ship, 91;  adaptation  of,  94:  amal- 
gamation of,  95;  history  of  the  oral 
transmission  of,  102  et  seq.;  mono- 
theistic tendency  in,  103;  ethical 
notions  in,  in  et  seq.;  criteria  of 
the  age  of,  116  et  seq  ;  tribal,  117; 
collecting  of,  123  et  seq.:  remodel- 
ing of  the,  137  et  seq.;  of  the  patri- 
archs, period  of  the  formation  of, 
137;  political  references  in,  138. 
Levi,  114  et  seq. 
Leviathan,  15. 
Lombards,  28. 
Lot,  19,  42  et  seq.,  49,  58  et  seq.,  74, 


80  et  seq.,  91,  107,  152;   daughters 
of;  112  et  seq. 

Machpelah,  106,  130,  146  et  seq. 

Mahanaim,  101,  103. 

Manasseh,  21. 

Manhattan  Island,  28. 

Mdrchen,  38,  89. 

Marduk,  41. 

Marriages,  mixed,  156. 

Migrations,  21  et  seq. 

Milkah,  119. 

Mizraim,  102. 

Moab,  19  et  seq  ,  20,  45. 

Monotheism  hostile  to  myths,  15  et 

seq. 
Moses,  31,  33,  93,  100,  141,  159. 
Myths,    some  legends  faded,    14  et 

seq.;  monotheism  hostile  to,  15  et 

seq.;  significance  and  origin  of,  16 

et  seq. 

Nabi,  140. 

Names,  origin  and  meaning  of,  27  et 

seq. 
Narratives,  individual,  100  et  seq. 
Narrators,  methods  of  the,  58. 
Nephilim,  103. 
New  Testament,  3. 
Nimrod,  101  ;  legend  of,  go. 
Nineveh,  138. 
Noah,  7,  9,  13,  44,  48,  58  et  seq.,  76,  95, 

101,  108. 

Onan,  107. 

Oral  tradition,  88. 

Oral  transmission  of  the  legends, 

history  of  the,  102  et  seq. 
Origin  of  the  world,  legends  of  the 

13. 
Ovid,  93. 

Paradise,  14,  16,  17,  90  et  seq.,  97,  104. 

Passover,  30. 

Patriarchs,  tales  of  the,  4  ;  period  of 
the,  6;  legends  of  the,  13,  18  et 
seq.,  100,  152;  represent  tribes,  19 
et  seq.;  pedigrees  of  the,  98;  not 
saints,  88,  113  et  seq.  ;  disguised 
divinities,  119;  period  of  formation 
of  legends  of,  137. 


164 


THE  LEGENDS  OF  GENESIS. 


Penuel,  31  et  seq.,  49,  105.  106. 

Perez,  21. 

Personages  in  the  legends,  chief  and 
subordinate,  52. 

Phaedra,  94. 

Pharaoh,  45,  52  et  seq.,  114. 

Philemon,  94. 

Phoenician  influences,  91. 

Plato,  94. 

Plausibility  demanded,  72. 

Poetry  in  Genesis,  10  et  seq. 

Political  history,  Genesis  not,  5. 

Polytheism,  92.  94. 

Potiphar,  45.  53.  94.  134- 

Primitive  literary  art,  simplicity  and 
clearness  of,  47  et  seq. 

Prophets,  the  relation  of  the  collec- 
tion to  the,  139  et  seq. 

Prosody,  Hebrew,  38. 

Proverbs,  Book  of,  85. 

Priestly  Codex.     See  Codex. 

Races,  progenitors  of,  18;  character 

of  in  these  legends,  22  et  seq. 
Rachel,  5,  57  et  seq.,  99,  112. 
Rebeccah,  21,  46,  49  et  seq.,  57  et 

seq.,  61  et  seq.,  82,  98,  108,  131  et 

seq. 
Redaction,  Priestly  Codex  and  final, 

145  et  seq. 
Religion,  light  on  the  history  of,  103; 

profane  motive  mingled  with,  no. 
Reuben,  21,  50,  93  et  seq.,  101,  114  et 

seq. 
Romance,  an  early  Israelitish,  79  et 

seq.,  86.  v 

Ryssel,  157. 

Sabbath,  17,  31, 156. 
Saga.  in. 
Sage,  the,  2  et  seq. 
Salt,  pillar  of,  34. 
Samaria,  ig. 
Samson,  3,  no,  120. 
Samuel,  Book  of,  2,  54. 
Sanctuaries  of  Israel,  33;  legends  of, 
106. 


Sarah,  51   et  seq.,  61  et  seq.,  70  et 

seq.,  114,  119. 
Selah,  ng. 
Seventh  day,  31. 
Shechem,  20,  24,  35. 
Shem,  50  et  seq.,  61,  91. 
Simeon,  19,  114  et  seq. 
Sodom,  41  et  seq.,  60,  90,  96,  107. 
Soul-life,  not  ignored  in  legends,  61; 

interest  in,  in  legends,  85. 
Stories,  devices  for  uniting,  81. 
Story-tellers,  professional,  41. 
Stucken,  121. 
Style,  detailed,  86. 
Sustained  interest,  73. 
Syrian  wars,  138. 

Tamar,  21,  61  et  seq.,  112  et  seq.,  121, 

129. 
Tammuz,  121. 
Tell-el-Amarna,  90. 
Temnah,  50. 

Theocracy,  Israelitish,  150. 
Theophany,  104  et  seq.,  146,  151. 
Thigh,  muscle  of  the,  32. 
Thotmosis,  in,  118, 
Thought  expressed  by  actions,  60. 
Tigris,  7. 

Tradition,  historical  and  oral,  4. 
Transmission,  fidelity  of,  98. 
Tribes,   relations   of   explained,   25 

vanished,  88  ;  names  of,  118. 

Universal  history,  beginnings  of,  156. 

Variants,  value  of  the,  99  et  seq. 
Variations  on  a  given  theme,  71. 

Wartburg,  29. 

Wellhausen,  89,  97,  143.  145.  155.  x57- 

Wife,  patriarch's,  99. 

Wildeboer,  124. 

Winckler,  102,  120,  121. 

Woman,  49- 

Zerah,  21. 
Zipporah,  100. 
Zoar,  29,  34.  96- 


Catalogue  of  Publications 


of  the 


Open   Court  Publishing  Company 

Chicago,  Monon  Building,  324.  Dearborn  St. 

London,  Kegan  Paul,  Trench,  Triibner  <V  Co. 


SUNDARA  ROW,  T. 

GEOMETRICAL  EXERCISES  IN  PAPER-FOLDING. 

With   Half-Tones  from   Photographs   of  Exercises.     Pages,  x  +  148. 
Cloth,  $1.00  net  (4s.  6d.  net). 

COPE,  E.  D. 

THE  PRIMARY  FACTORS  OF  ORGANIC  EVOLUTION. 
121  cuts.    Pp.  xvi,  547.    Cloth,  *2. 00  (10s.). 

MULLER,  F.   MAX. 

THREE    INTRODUCTORY    LECTURES    ON    THE    SCIENCE    OF 
THOUGHT. 
128  pages.    Cloth,  75c  (3s.  6d.). 

THREE  LECTURES  ON  THE  SCIENCE  OF  LANGUAGE. 
112  pages.    2nd  Edition.    Cloth,  75c  (3s.  6d.). 

ROMANES,   GEORGE  JOHN. 
DARWIN  AND  AFTER  DARWIN. 

Three  Vols.,  84.00.     Singly,  as  follows  : 

1.  The  Darwinian  Theory.    460  pages.    125  illustrations.   Cloth,  $2.00. 

2.  Post-Darwinian  Questions.     Heredity  and  Utility.     Pp.  338.  $1.50. 

3.  Post-Darwinian  Questions.  Isolation  and  Physiological  Selection. 
Pp.  181.    $1.00. 

AN  EXAMINATION  OF  WEISMANNISM. 
236  pages.    Cloth,  $1.00. 

THOUGHTS  ON  RELIGION. 

Third  Edition,  Pages,  184.     Cloth,  gilt  top,  $1.25. 

SHUTE,  DR.  D.  KERFOOT. 

FIRST  BOOK  IN  ORGANIC  EVOLUTION. 

g  colored  plates,  39  cuts.     Pp.  xvi  +  285.     Price,  $2.00  (y%.  6d.). 

MACH,   ERNST. 

THE  SCIENCE  OF  MECHANICS. 

Trans,  by  T.  J.  McCormack.    2nd  ed.    250  cuts.    540  pages.    $1.75  net 
(78.  6d.). 

POPULAR  SCIENTIFIC  LECTURES. 

Third  Edition.    415  pages.    59  cuts.   Cloth,  gilt  top.   $1.50  (78.  6d.). 

THE  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  SENSATIONS. 
Pp.  208.     37  cuts.     Cloth,  $1.25  (6s.  6d.). 

LAGRANGE,  JOSEPH  LOUIS. 

LECTURES  ON  ELEMENTARY  MATHEMATICS. 

With  portrait  of  the  author.     Pp.  172.     Price,  Si  00  (5s.). 

DE  MORGAN,  AUGUSTUS. 

ON  THE  STUDY  AND  DIFFICULTIES  OF  MATHEMATICS. 
New  Reprint  edition  with  notes.     Pp.  viii+288.     Cloth,  $1.25  (5s.). 

ELEMENTARY   ILLUSTRATIONS   OF  THE   DIFFERENTIAL   AND 
INTEGRAL  CALCULUS. 
New  reprint  edition.     Price,  Ji.oo  (5s.). 


FINK,   KARL. 

A  BRIEF  HISTORY  OF  MATHEMATICS. 

Trans,  by  W.  W.  Beman  and  D.  E.  Smith.    Pp.,  333.    Cloth,  $1.50  (5s. 6d.). 

SCHUBERT,   HERMANN. 

MATHEMATICAL  ESSAYS  AND  RECREATIONS. 
Pp.  149.     Cuts,  37.     Cloth,  75c  (3s.  6d.). 

HUC  AND  GABET,   MM. 

TRAVELS  IN  TARTAR\,  THIBET  AND  CHINA. 

100  engravings.    Pp  28+660.    2  vols.    82.00  (10s.).   One  vol.,  81.25  (5s.). 

CARUS,  PAUL. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  DEVIL,  AND  THE  IDEA  OF  EVIL. 

311  Illustrations.    Pages,  500.    Price,  $6.00  (30s.). 
THE  CROWN    OF  THORNS. 

A  Story  of  the  Time  of  Christ.     Illustrated.     Pages,  73.    Cloth,  75c 

net  (3s.  6d.  net). 
EROS  AND  PSYCHE. 

After  Apuleius.  Illustrations  by  Paul  Thumann.  Pp.  125.  CI.,  81.50  (5s.). 
WHENCE  AND  WHITHER? 

An  Inquiry  into  the  Nature  of  the  Soul.    196  pages.   Cloth,  75c  (3s.  6d.). 
THE  ETHICAL  PROBLEM. 

Second  edition,  revised  and  enlarged.  351  pages.  Cloth,  81.25  (6s.  6d.). 
FUNDAMENTAL  PROBLEMS. 

Second  edition,  revised  and  enlarged.    372  pp.    CI.,  $1.50  (7s.  6d.). 
HOMILIES  OF  SCIENCE. 

317  pages.    Cloth,  Gilt  Top,  81.50  (7s.  6d.). 
THE  IDEA  OF  GOD. 

Fourth  edition.    32  pages.    Paper,  15c  (gd.). 
THE  SOUL  OF  MAN. 

2nd  ed.     182  cuts.    482  pages.    Cloth,  81.50  (6s.  net). 
THE  CHIEFS  DAUGHTER. 

A  Legend  of  Niagara.     Illustrated.     Pp.  54.     Cloth,  81.00. 
TRUTH  IN  FICTION.    Twelve  Tales  with  a  Moral. 

White  and  gold  binding,  gilt  edges.     Pp.  ill,     81.00  (5s.). 
THE  RELIGION  OF  SCIENCE. 

Second,  extra  edition.     Pp.  103.    Cloth,  50c  (2s.  6d.). 
PRIMER  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

240  pages.     Third  Edition.    Cloth,  81.00  (5s.). 
THE  GOSPEL  OF  BUDDHA.    According  to  Old  Records. 

Sixth  Edition.    Pp.275.   Cloth,  81.00  (5s.).    In  German,  81.25  (6s.  6d.). 
BUDDHISM  AND  ITS  CHRISTIAN  CRITICS. 

Pages,  311.    Cloth,  81.25  (6s.  6d.). 
KARMA.    A  Story  of  Early  Buddhism. 

Illustrated  by  Japanese  artists.     Crfipe  paper,  75c  (3s.  6d.). 
NIRVANA  :  A  Story  of  Buddhist  Psychology. 

Japanese  edition,  like  Karma.     81.00  (4s.  6d.). 
LAO-TZE'S  TAOTEH  KING. 

Chinese-English.    Pp.  360.    Cloth,  $3.00  (15s.). 

CORNILL,  CARL  HEINRICH. 
THE  PROPHETS  OF  ISRAEL. 

Pp.,  200.    Cloth,  81.00  (5s.).  , 

HISTORY  OF  THE  PEOPLE  OF  ISRAEL. 
Pp.  vi  +  325.     Cloth,  81.50  (7s.  6d.). 

POWELL,   J.  W. 

TRUTH  AND  ERROR;  or,  the  Science  of  Intellection. 
Pp.  423.    Cloth,  81.75  (7s.  6d.). 

RIBOT,  TH. 

THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  ATTENTION. 
THE  DISEASES  OF  PERSONALITY. 
THE  DISEASES  OF  THE  WILL. 

Cloth,  75  cents  each  (3s.  6d.).     Full  set,  cloth,  $i.J5  (9s.). 
EVOLUTION  OF  GENERAL  IDEAS. 
Pp.  231.     Cloth,  $1.25  (5s.). 


BUDGE,  DR.  E.  A.  WALLIS. 
THE  BOOK  OF  THE  DEAD. 

3  vols.    420  new  vignettes.    Crown  8vo.    Cloth,  83.75  net. 

HUTCHINSON,  WOODS. 

THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  DARWIN. 
Pp.  xii  +  241.    Price,  $1.50  (6s.). 

FREYTAG,    GUSTAV. 

THE  LOST  MANUSCRIPT.     A  Novel. 

2  vols.   953  pages.     Extra  cloth,  $4.00  (21s).     One  vol.,  cl.,  $1.00  (5s.). 

MARTIN  LUTHER. 

Illustrated.     Pp.130.     Cloth,  $1.00  (5s.). 

AgVAGHOSHA. 

DISCOURSE  ON  THE  AWAKENING  OF  FAITH  in  the  MahSyana. 
From  the  Chinese  by  T.  Suzuki.     Pp.,  176.     Cl.,  $1.25  (5s.  6d.). 

TRUMBULL,   M.   M. 

THE  FREE  TRADE  STRUGGLE  IN  ENGLAND. 
Second  Edition.    296  pages.    Cloth,  75c  (3s.  66.). 

WHEELBARROW  :  Articles  and  Discussions  on  the  Labor  Question. 
With  portrait  of  the  author.     303  pages.     Cloth,  $1.00  (5s.). 

GOETHE  AND  SCHILLER'S  XENIONS. 

Translated  by  Paul  Carus.     Album  form.     Pp.162.    Cl.,  $1.00  (5s.). 

OLDENBERG,  H. 

ANCIENT  INDIA:    ITS  LANGUAGE  AND  RELIGIONS. 
Pp.  no.    Cloth,  50c  (2s.  6d.). 

CONWAY,   MONCURE  D. 

SOLOMON,  AND  SOLOMONIC  LITERATURE. 
Pp.  243.     Cloth,  $1.50  (6s.). 

DEDEKIND,   R. 

ESSAYS  ON  THE  THEORY  OF  NUMBER. 

Trans,  by  W.  W.  Beman.     Pp.115.     Cl.,  75  cents  (3s.  6d.). 

GARBE,   RICHARD. 

THE  REDEMPTION  OF  THE  BRAHMAN.    A  Tale  of  Hindu  Life. 
Laid  paper.     Gilt  top.     96  pages.     Price,  75c  (3s.  6d.). 

THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  ANCIENT  INDIA. 
Pp.  89.     Cloth,  50c  (2s.  6d.). 

HUEPPE,   FERDINAND. 

THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  BACTERIOLOGY. 

28  Woodcuts.     Pp.  x  +467.     Price,  $1.75  (9s.). 

LEVY-BRUHL,   PROF.  L. 

HISTORY  OF  MODERN  PHILOSOPHY  IN  FRANCE. 

23  Portraits.     Handsomely  bound.     Pp.  500.     Price,  $3.00  (12s.). 

TOPINARD,  DR.   PAUL. 

SCIENCE  AND  FAITH. 

Pp.  374.     Cloth,  $1.50  (6s.  6d.). 

BINET,   ALFRED. 

THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  REASONING. 
Pp.  193.     Cloth,  75c  (3s.  6d.). 

THE  PSYCHIC  LIFE  OF  MICRO-ORGANISMS. 
Pp.  135.     Cloth,  75c  (3s.  6d.). 


N.  B.  Send  for  our  large  Illustrated  Catalogue,  contat0- 
ing  full  details  of  our  publications  and  of  our  two  magazines,  1'he 
Ofen  Court  and  The  Montst. 


*7.   Martin  r  „?!*  °S  Ancient  r^jf'  Ko«*N£s       *„     , 

30-   CAi„ese/f;rf^-     By  {f%°*°*  Jacob  HoVv'?  M->-  5    fM-«* 

33-   «/»,;/_&    .'5C  fed.  | "        Tluory 'S  Organic   I°C/3S.). 

TV,        ^  __-ttn  Preparation"^"-  ^  <».).     .^ 


3*   Want's  /V, 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


so 


KEC'D 

?ESk  FBI7"* 
8HN2.7   MO 

JAhl  2 1 19A1 

0  1  isso 


4iHPjUft"7  199  > 


JUL  2  2 


4^  OCT.  26 

OCT  2  6 19 


.¥oa»n 


DEC  Oq 


2  1  1992 


AM  19 


1IHIF 


TO/. 

AS 


«i% 


REC'D  LD-URL 

4  *>&$$%  *& 


k 


wamm    ■ 


^OFCAUFOfy* 


^ 


"%] 


'owm^ 


F# 


University  ol  California,  Los  Angeles 


iNIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIII! 

L  005  487  376  5 


^JTT. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  377  647 


